Rhynchophorus ferrugineus
2008; Wiley; Volume: 38; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Galês
10.1111/j.1365-2338.2008.01195.x
ISSN1365-2338
Tópico(s)Insect Pest Control Strategies
ResumoEPPO BulletinVolume 38, Issue 1 p. 55-59 Free Access Rhynchophorus ferrugineus First published: 12 March 2008 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2338.2008.01195.xCitations: 62 European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Organisation Européenne et Méditerranéenne pour la Protection des Plantes AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Identity Name: Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier, 1790). Synonyms: Calandra ferruginea (Fabricius, 1801), Curculio ferrugineus Olivier, 1790, Rhynchophorus signaticollis Chevrolat, 1882. Taxonomic position: Insecta: Coleoptera: Curculionidae. Notes on taxonomy and nomenclature: the genus Rhynchophorus contains ten species, of which seven are known to attack palms (Booth et al., 1990), including, besides R. ferrugineus, the EPPO A1 action list pest Rhynchophorus palmarum (OEPP/EPPO, 2005). A key was provided by Wattanapongsiri (1966). Reginald (1973) considers R. ferrugineus as the typical Rhynchophorus species. In Papua New Guinea, R. ferrugineus has been described as subsp. papuanus (Mercer, 1994). Common names: Asiatic palm weevil, coconut weevil, red palm weevil, red stripe weevil (English), picudo asiático de la palma (Spanish), charançon asiatique du palmier (French), Indomalaiischer Palmen-Rüssler (German). EPPO code: RHYCFE. Phytosanitary categorization: EPPO A2 action list no. 332. Hosts R. ferrugineus is essentially a pest of palms (Arecaceae), being recorded on Areca catechu, Arenga pinnata, Borassus flabellifer, Calamus merillii, Caryota maxima, Caryota cumingii, Cocos nucifera, Corypha gebanga, Corypha elata, Elaeis guineensis, Livistona decipiens, Metroxylon sagu, Oreodoxa regia, Phoenix canariensis, Phoenix dactylifera, Phoenix sylvestris, Sabal umbraculifera, Trachycarpus fortunei, Washingtonia sp., etc. It can also attack Agave americana and sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum). Geographical distribution EPPO region: Cyprus (since 2006), France (since 2006, Corse, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur), Greece (since 2006, Kriti, Rhodos), Israel (since 1999, under eradication), Italy (since 2004, Campania, Lazio, Puglia, Sardegna, Sicilia, Toscana), Jordan (since 1999, under eradication), Spain (Andalucía since 1996, Comunidad Valenciana since 2004, Murcia, Islas Baleares and Islas Canarias since 2007), Turkey (since 2005, Mersin province). Asia: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China (Guangdong), India (widespread), Indonesia (widespread), Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan (since 2000, Kyushu only), Jordan (since 1999), Kuwait, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam. Africa: Egypt (since 1992, Ismaelyia and Sharkyia governorates) Oceania: Australia (isolated record in Queensland), Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Western Samoa EU: Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Spain See CABI/EPPO (2003). Biology Adults of R. ferrugineus are active during day and night, although flight and crawling is generally restricted to daytime. Leefmans (1920) reported that adults are capable of long flights and can find their host plants in widely separated areas; his studies suggested that they can detect breeding sites at distances of at least 900 m. Mating takes place at any time of day, and males and females mate many times during their lifetime. The pre-oviposition period lasts 1–7 days. Oviposition is generally confined to the softer portions of the palm and continues for approximately 45 days. During this period, the adult female lays an average of 204 eggs. Eggs are laid in wounds along the trunk or in petioles, and also in wounds caused by the beetle Oryctes rhinoceros. There is a short post-oviposition period of 10 days before the female dies. On hatching, the apodal larvae begin feeding towards the interior of the palm. In palms up to 5 years old, the larvae may be found in the bole, stem or crown. As palms advance in age, the grubs are generally confined to the portions of the stem close to the growing point. In palms more than 15 years old, the larvae are generally found in the stem about 1 m below the crown, in the crown and bases of leaf petioles. The larval period is 36–78 days (average 55 days) (Nirula et al., 1953). Jaya et al. (2000) recorded seven larval instars when R. ferrugineus was reared on sugarcane. When about to pupate, larvae construct an oval-shaped cocoon of fibre (Menon & Pandalai, 1960). The complete life cycle of the weevil, from egg to adult emergence, takes an average of 82 days in India (Menon & Pandalai, 1960). After emergence from the pupal case, the adult remains inside the cocoon for 4–17 days (average 8 days) (Menon & Pandalai, 1960). According to Hutson (1933), it becomes sexually mature during this period of inactivity. Adults live 2–3 months, irrespective of sex. In captivity, the maximum life span of the adult was 76 days for the female and 113 days for the male. It has been suggested that a single pair of weevils can theoretically give rise to more than 53 million progeny in four generations in the absence of controlling factors (Leefmans, 1920; Menon & Pandalai, 1960). In Egypt, El Ezaby (1997) reported that the weevil has three generations per year, the shortest generation (first) of 100.5 days and the longest (third) of 127.8 days. The study also showed that the upper temperature threshold of the egg was 40°C. For laboratory rearing of adults, freshly shredded sugarcane tissue served both as food and oviposition medium (Rananavare et al., 1975). Rahalkar et al. (1978) reported that an artificial diet containing sugarcane bagasse, coconut cake, yeast, sucrose, essential minerals and vitamins, agar, water and food preservatives maintained 12 generations of the weevil. Detection and identification Symptoms The pest affects stems and growing points. It is very difficult to detect R. ferrugineus in the early stages of infestation. Generally, it is detected only after the palm has been severely damaged. Careful observation may reveal the following signs which are indicative of the presence of the pest: holes in the crown or trunk from which chewed-up fibres are ejected (this may be accompanied by the oozing of brown viscous liquid); crunching noise produced by the feeding grubs can be heard when the ear is placed to the trunk of the palm; withered bud/crown. Morphology Eggs Creamy white, oblong, shiny; average size 2.62 × 1.12 mm (Menon & Pandalai, 1960). Eggs hatch in 3 days and increase in size before hatching (Reginald, 1973). The brown mouth parts of the larvae can be seen through the shell before hatching. Larvae Up to 35 mm long; brown head, white body composed of 13 segments; mouthparts well developed and strongly chitinized; average length of fully grown larvae 50 mm, and width (in middle) 20 mm. Pupae Pupal case 50–95 × 25–40 mm; prepupal stage of 3 days and pupal period of 12–20 days; pupae cream, then brown, with shiny surface, greatly furrowed and reticulated; average size 35 × 15 mm. Adults Reddish brown, about 35 × 10 mm, with long curved rostrum; dark spots on upper side of thorax; head and rostrum comprising about one third of total length. In male, dorsal apical half of rostrum covered by a patch of short brownish hairs; in female, rostrum bare, more slender, curved and a little longer than in male (Menon & Pandalai, 1960). See Booth et al. (1990) for a full description. Pictures of the pest are available in the EPPO diagnostic protocol for Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Rhynchophorus palmarum (OEPP/EPPO, 2007). Detection methods The Davis Red Weevil Detector is an electronic instrument capable of amplifying the noise made by R. ferrugineus larvae. This detector is essentially a low frequency amplifier. Conventional light traps do not attract R. ferrugineus (Sadakathulla & Ramachandran, 1992). In Sri Lanka, Ekanayake (in Reginald, 1973) found traps baited with split fresh coconut petioles to be effective in reducing the number of palms attacked by weevils and consequently recommended their use in estate practice. The Coconut Research Institute (1987) suggested regular surveys of all young palms up to 10–12 years of age as an inspection measure to detect weevil-infested palms. Recently, aggregation pheromones have been used for mass-trapping and detection of adult weevils. Faleiro & Chellapan (1999) reported the use of ferrugineol-based pheromone lures for trapping R. ferrugineus. They also suggested that it was essential to use these together with food bait (sugarcane) to obtain higher catches of the weevil. Abraham et al. (1999) also found that weevil trapping is only effective if the pheromone is used with the food bait. A specially designed pheromone trap was described by Maheswari & Rao (2000). Rajapakse et al. (1998) found that a 5-L open plastic bucket baited with ferrugineol (4-methyl-5-nonanol)-pentanol, hung on coconut palm stems at 1.5 m caught significantly more adult weevils than ferrugineol-pentanol baited funnel and metal traps. Ferrugineol remained effective as bait for 12 weeks under field conditions. Hallett et al. (1999) found that trap catches were maximized by placing the traps at ground level or a height of 2 m and that vane traps were superior to bucket traps. Muralidharan et al. (1999) found a significant number of weevils were attracted to bucket traps baited with sugarcane, followed by traps baited with coconut exocarp; date fronds were the least preferred bait. Nakash et al. (2000) suggested the use of dogs to detect weevils infesting date palms in Israel. Bokhari & Abuzuhira (1992) developed a test for weevil-infested date palms in Saudi Arabia. In such palms, the rate of transpiration increased and diffusive resistance and water potential were reduced. All three factors could be monitored to detect infestation by R. ferrugineus. Pathways for movement The pest can be spread over long distances in infested plants for planting of host palms. Short-distance spread is possible by adult flight. Pest significance Economic impact The larvae of R. ferrugineus, like those of the EPPO A1 action list pest R. palmarum (OEPP/EPPO, 2007), feed on the growing tissue in the crown of palms, often destroying the apical growth area and causing eventual death of the palm. Menon & Pandalai (1960) reported that R. ferrugineus is a serious pest of coconut (C. nucifera) in India and Sri Lanka. Ganapathy et al. (1992) observed R. ferrugineus damage in 34% of coconut groves in Kerala (IN), while Dhileepan (1992) reported that the weevil is a major pest of oil palm (E. guineensis) in the same state, and it is reported on this host more generally in India (Misra, 1998). Flach (1983) reported that R. ferrugineus and R. vulneratus are major pests of sago palm (M. sagu) in Malaysia (Sarawak). R. ferrugineus also causes serious damage on date palm (P. dactylifera) in the Middle East. In the EPPO region, R. ferrugineus has already given rise to isolated outbreaks in date-producing countries (Israel, Jordan), while the outbreak in southern Spain is threatening the largest palm plantation in Europe, at Elche in Comunidad Valenciana, which is rated as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO. Control Chemical control As damage by R. ferrugineus is difficult to detect during the early stages of infestation, emphasis is generally placed on preventive measures. The common and practical curative measure is the use of insecticides. Preventive and curative measures include: trunk injection with systemic insecticides; treatment of wounds with repellents and filling leaf axils with insecticide dusts mixed with sand; drenching of the crown of infested trees with insecticides. More modern products are being found also to be effective. Barranco et al. (1998) recorded the percentage mortality of R. ferrugineus larvae treated with different rates of fipronil and azadirachtin (neem). Laboratory trials conducted by Cabello et al. (1997) showed that imidacloprid was more effective against all stages of R. ferrugineus larvae than oxamyl. Biological control Reginald (1973) suggested that natural enemies do not play an important part in controlling R. ferrugineus. There were some attempts in the laboratory and field using the predacious Chelisoches morio in India (Abraham & Kurian, 1973). However, this did not provide a measurable impact on the weevil. Gopinadhan et al. (1990) reported that a cytoplasmic polyhedrosis virus infected all stages of the weevil in Kerala (IN); infected late-larval stages resulted in malformed adults and drastic suppression of the host population. Although various mites have been reported in India as parasites of R. ferrugineus (Nirula et al., 1953; Peter, 1989), their impact on the population needs to be ascertained. There is no practical biological control at present. Cultural and sanitary methods These include prompt destruction of infested plant material (Kurian & Mathen, 1971) and prophylactic treatment of cut wounds (Pillai, 1987). Abraham (1971) suggested cutting leaves at or beyond the region where leaflets emerge at the base to prevent entry by the weevil into the stem. Azam & Razvi (2001) found that deep cutting to remove growing points of off-shoots (unwanted growths from the trunk) completely, then treating the cut surface with an insecticide such as formothion or dimethoate and covering it with mud reduced the level of infestation to less than 4% compared to 20% for an untreated control (cut at the trunk surface). Pheromones and other behavioural chemicals Pheromones are increasingly being used as a management tool against R. ferrugineus. Detailed protocols for pheromone-based mass trapping of the weevil are provided by Hallett et al. (1999). Faleiro et al. (1999) evaluated pheromone lures for the weevil in date plantations in Saudi Arabia and found that high release lures (Ferrolure and Ferrolure+) obtained from Chem Tica Natural, Costa Rica, attracted twice as many weevils as low release formulations. These pheromone lures were equally effective in attracting the pest and were on a par with Agrisense lures from the UK. Vidyasagar et al. (2000b), El Garhy (1996) and Faleiro et al. (1999) have reported on the use of the aggregation pheromones Ferrolure and Ferrolure+. Gunawardena et al. (1998) identified host attractants for the weevil from freshly cut coconut bark and found that a 1:1 mixture of gamma nonanoic lactone 1 and 4-hydroxy-3-methoxystyrene 2 were responsible. Perez et al. (1996) reported that there were no apparent differences between the pheromones of R. ferrugineus and R. vulneratus. Sterile insect technique Though there has been some research on use of sterile insect techniques against R. ferrugineus (Rahalkar et al., 1973, 1975; Ramachandran, 1991), this has not led to any practical applications. IPM programmes Integrated pest management for R. ferrugineus has been developed and tested in coconut palms in India (Kurian et al., 1976; Sathiamma et al., 1982, Abraham et al., 1989). Included in the IPM programme were: surveillance; trapping the weevil using pheromones lures; cultural measures such as plant and field sanitation; physical methods (preventing entry of weevils through cut ends of petioles and wounds; use of attractants and other chemicals (including filling of leaf axils with lindane and sand as a preventive measure). Abraham et al. (1989) found the IPM approach very effective in reducing the number of infested palms in Kerala (IN). In the Al Qatif region of Saudi Arabia, Vidyasagar et al. (2000a) successfully developed an IPM programme which, in addition to mass pheromone trapping, included a survey of all cultivated gardens, systematic checking of all palms for infestation, periodic soaking of palms, and mass removal of neglected farms. Reviews of control strategies and IPM for R. ferrguineus have also been presented by various other authors (Nair et al., 1998; Ramachandran, 1998; Murphy and Briscoe, 1999). Containment and eradication In Israel (Hamburger et al., 2003), an outbreak on date palm which was detected in 1999 was rapidly delimited as a quarantine area. Within this contained area, the pest was suppressed by the following measures: mass trapping, chemical treatment of infested palms, destruction of heavily infested palms, preventive measures). After 4 years, catches were reduced from 324 in 2000 to 26 in 2002 and no new infested palm was found in 2002. It is possible that eradication can be achieved, and it is clear at least that the pest can be contained and suppressed. Phytosanitary risk R. ferrugineus attacks many species of palms, and causes serious damage by killing individual trees. It would probably be a serious pest in any EPPO country where palms are widely cultivated. On the basis of experience in Spain, Esteban-Duran et al. (1998) warned that R. ferrugineus could readily be introduced into other countries of the EPPO region with imported plants for planting. The date-producing countries are particularly at risk: Israel and Jordan have already had outbreaks, and the North African countries are clearly threatened. All Mediterranean countries which grow palms as amenity trees in towns and on sea fronts also face a serious risk. Fitzgibbon et al. (1999) identified the weevil as having potential for introduction and establishment in Northern Australia, as a pest of sugarcane. R. ferrugineus is actively extending its range. Several other Rhynchophorus spp. attack palms in different parts of the world, in particular Rhynchophorus bilineatus and Rhynchophorus vulneratus in Southeast Asia, Rhynchophorus phoenicis in tropical Africa and Rhynchophorus palmarum in Central and South America. The last of these species has already been placed on the EPPO A1 action list (OEPP/EPPO, 2005). The risk from the other species has not yet been evaluated in detail. R. ferrugineus is probably the species which is potentially most damaging in practice. In addition, no native Rhynchophorus sp. are found on palms in the EPPO region. Phytosanitary measures R. ferrugineus was added in 2005 to the EPPO A2 action list, and endangered EPPO member countries are thus recommended to regulate it as a quarantine pest. Outbreaks have already occurred in several EPPO countries, but without rapid spread. It seems that, in the short term at least, domestic phytosanitary measures can contain these outbreaks if they are detected sufficiently early (see Containment and eradication above). However, it is clear that the best strategy for uninfested areas in the EPPO region is to exclude the pest altogether, by requiring all imported plants for planting of palms to originate in a pest-free area or pest-free place of production. Acknowledgement The CABI Crop Protection Compendium was used as a major source of information for this data sheet. References Abraham VA (1971) Note on an effective method of preventing entry by Rhynchophorus ferrugineus into the stem of coconut palm through cut petioles. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 41(12), 1130– 1131. Web of Science®Google Scholar Abraham VA & Kurian C (1973) Chelisoches moris (Forficulidae: Dermaptera), a predator on eggs and early instar grubs of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. Journal of Plantation Crops 1, 147– 152. Google Scholar Abraham VA, Koya KMA & Kurian C (1989) Integrated management of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in coconut gardens. Journal of Plantation Crops 16(Suppl.), 159– 162. Google Scholar Abraham VA, Nair SS & Nair CPR (1999) A comparative study on the efficacy of pheromone lures in trapping Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in coconut gardens. Indian Coconut Journal Cochin 30, 1– 2. Google Scholar Azam KM & Razvi SA (2001) Infestation of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in relation to off-shoots on date palm trunk and its management. In: Proceedings of the Meeting on Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (abstr.). Muscat (OM). 19–20 February 2000. Google Scholar Barranco P, De La Pena J, Martin MM & Cabello T (1998) [Efficiency of chemical control of the new palm pest Rhynchophorus ferrugineus.] Boletín de Sanidad Vegetal, Plagas 24, 301– 306 (in Spanish). Google Scholar Bokhari UG & Abuzuhira R (1992) Diagnostic tests for Rhynchophorus ferrugineus-infested date-palm trees. Arab Journal of Scientific Research 10, 93– 104. Web of Science®Google Scholar Booth RG, Cox ML & Madge RB (1990) IIE Guides to Insects of Importance to Man. 3. Coleoptera. CAB International, Wallingford (GB). Google Scholar Cabello T, De La Pena J, Barranco P & Belda J (1997) Laboratory evaluation of imidacloprid and oxamyl against Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. In: Tests of Agrochemicals and Cultivars, no. 18, pp. 6– 7. Association of Applied Biologists, Wellesbourne (GB). Web of Science®Google Scholar CABI/EPPO (2003) Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, No. 259. CAB International, Wallingford (GB). Google Scholar Dhileepan K (1992) Insect pests of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) in India. Planter 68, 183– 191. Google Scholar El Ezaby FA (1997) Injection as a method to control Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. Arab Journal of Plant Protection 15, 31– 38. Google Scholar El Garhy ME (1996) Field evaluation of the aggregation pheromone of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in Egypt. In: Brighton Crop Protection: Pests and Diseases (1996), pp. 1059– 1064. BCPC, Farnham (GB). Google Scholar Esteban-Duran J, Yela JL, Beitia Crespo F & Jimenez Alvarez A (1998) [Exotic curculionids liable to be introduced into Spain and other EU countries through imported vegetables.] Boletín de Sanidad Vegetal, Plagas 24, 23– 40 (in Spanish). Google Scholar Faleiro JR & Chellapan M (1999) Attraction of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus to ferrugineol-based pheromone lures in coconut gardens. Journal of Tropical Agriculture 37, 60– 63. CASGoogle Scholar Faleiro JR, Al-Shuaibi MA, Abraham VA & Kumar TP (1999) A technique to assess the longevity of the pheromone (Ferrolure) used in trapping Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. Oman University Journal for Agricultural Sciences 4, 5– 9. Google Scholar Fitzgibbon F, Allsopp PG & De Barro PJ (1999) Chomping, sucking and boring on our doorstep – the menace from the north. In National Sugar Industry Biosecurity Plan, pp. 124– 131. Plant Health Australia, Deakin (AU). Google Scholar Flach M (1983) The sago palm. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper, No. 47. FAO, Rome (IT). Google Scholar Ganapathy T, Rajamanickam K, Raveendran TS, Lourduraj AC & Kennedy FJS (1992) Status of coconut cultivation in Pollachi tract. II Prevalence of pests and diseases Indian Coconut Journal Cochin 23, 4– 6. Google Scholar Gopinadhan PB, Mohandas N & Nair KPV (1990) Cytoplasmic polyhedrosis virus infecting red palm weevil of coconut. Current Science 59 (11), 577– 580. Web of Science®Google Scholar Gunawardena NE, Kern F, Janssen E, Meegoda C, Schafer D, Vostrowsky O et al . (1998) Host attractants for Rhynchophorus ferrugineus: identification, electrophysiological activity and laboratory bioassay. Journal of Chemical Ecology 24, 425– 437. CrossrefCASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Hallett RH, Oehlschlager AC & Borden JH (1999) Pheromone-trapping protocols for Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. International Journal of Pest Management 45, 231– 237. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Hamburger M, Bitton S & Nakache J (2003) Control of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, a quarantine pest in Israel. Phytoparasitica 31, 299– 300. Google Scholar Hutson JC (1933) The red weevil of coconut. Department of Agriculture of Ceylon. Leaflet, No. 22. Coconut Research Institute, Lunuwila (LK). Google Scholar Jaya S, Suresh T, Sobhitha Rani RS & Sreekumar S (2000) Evidence of seven larval instars in Rhynchophorus ferrugineus reared on sugarcane. Journal of Entomological Research 24, 27– 31. Google Scholar Kurian C & Mathen K (1971) Red palm weevil-hidden enemy of coconut palm. Indian Farming 21, 29– 31. Google Scholar Kurian C, Antony J, Abraham VA & Natarajan P (1976) Pest management in coconut gardens. An integrated approach. Indian Farming 7, 31– 35. Google Scholar Leefmans S (1920) [Rhynchophorus ferrugineus.] Mededelingen van het Instituut voor Plantenziekten, No. 43. Department van Landbouw, Nijverheld en Handel, Batavia (ID) (in Dutch). Google Scholar Maheswari TU & Rao NV (2000) Trapping of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus with pheromone trap. Insect Environment 6, 76– 77. Google Scholar Menon KPV & Pandalai KM (1960) Pests. In: The Coconut Palm: a Monograph, pp. 261– 265, Indian Central Coconut Committee, Ernakulam (IN). Google Scholar Mercer CWL (1994) Sago grub production in Labu swamp near Lae – Papua New Guinea. Klinkii Journal of Forestry Papua New Guinea 5, 30– 34. Google Scholar Misra RM (1998) Insect pests of Elaeis guineensis from India and their management. Indian Journal of Forestry 21, 259– 263. Google Scholar Muralidharan CM, Vaghasia UR & Sodagar NN (1999) Population, food preference and trapping using aggregation pheromone (ferrugineol) on Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 69, 602– 604. Web of Science®Google Scholar Murphy ST & Briscoe BR (1999) The red palm weevil as an alien invasive: biology and the prospects for biological control as a component of IPM. Biocontrol News and Information 20, 35N– 46N. Google Scholar Nair CPR, Sathiamma B, Mohan C, Gopal M, Mohan C & Gopal M (1998) Newer approaches in the integrated pest management in coconut. Indian Coconut Journal Cochin 29, 99– 103. Google Scholar Nakash J, Osem Y & Kehat M (2000) A suggestion to use dogs for detecting Rhynchophorus ferrugineus infestation in date palms in Israel. Phytoparasitica 28, 153– 155. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Nirula KK, Anthony J & Menon KPV (1953) The red palm weevil and its control. Proceedings of the 40th Session Indian Science Congress, 147– 148. Google Scholar OEPP/EPPO (2005) Data sheets on quarantine pests –Rhynchophorus palmarum. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 35, 468– 471. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar OEPP/EPPO (2007) EPPO standard PM 7/83 Diagnostics. Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Rhynchophorus palmarum. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 37, 571– 579. Google Scholar Perez AL, Hallett RH, Gries R, Gries G, Oehlaschlager AC & Borden JH (1996) Pheromone chirality of Asian palm weevils, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and R. vulneratus. Journal of Chemical Ecology 22, 357– 368. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Peter C (1989) A note on the mites associated with Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in Tamil Nadu. Journal of Insect Science 2, 160– 161. Google Scholar Pillai GB (1987) Integrated pest management in plantation crops. Journal of Coffee Research 17, 150– 153. Google Scholar Rahalkar GW, Harwalkar MR & Rananavare HO (1975) Laboratory studies on sterilization of male Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. In: Sterility Principle for Insect Control 1974. pp. 261– 267. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (AT). Google Scholar Rahalkar GW, Harwalkar MR, Rananavare HD, Shantaram K & Ayengar ARG (1973) Laboratory studies on radiation sterilization of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus males. Journal of Plantation Crops 1, 141– 145. Google Scholar Rahalkar GW, Tamhankar AJ & Shantaram K (1978) An artificial diet for rearing red palm weevil Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Oliv. Journal of Plantation Crops 6 (2), 61– 64. CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Rajapakse CNK, Gunawardena NE & Perera KFG (1998) Pheromone-baited trap for the management of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus populations in coconut plantations. COCOS 13, 54– 65. Google Scholar Ramachandran CP (1991) Effects of gamma radiation on various stages of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. Journal of Nuclear Agriculture and Biology 20, 218– 221. Google Scholar Ramachandran CP (1998) Rhynchophorus ferrugineus: a review and future strategies. Indian Coconut Journal Cochin 29, 104– 106. Google Scholar Rananavare HD, Shantaram K, Harwalkar MR & Rahalkar GW (1975) Method for the laboratory rearing of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus. Journal of Plantation Crops 3, 65– 67. Google Scholar Reginald C (1973) Principal insect pests. In: Coconuts. Tropical Agriculture Series. Longmans, London (GB). Google Scholar Sadakathulla S & Ramachandran TK (1992) Avoid light trap in coconut gardens. Indian Coconut Journal Cochin 23, 5. Google Scholar Sathiamma B, Abraham VA & Kurian C (1982) Integrated pest management of the major pests of coconut. Indian Coconut Journal Cochin 12, 27– 29. Google Scholar Vidyasagar PSPV, Al-Saihati AA, Al-Mohanna OE, Subbei AI & Abdul-Mohsin AM (2000) Management of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, a serious pest of date palm in Al Qatif, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Plantation Crops 28, 35– 43. Google Scholar Vidyasagar PSPV, Hagi M, Abozuhairah RA, Al-Mohanna OE & Al-Saihati AA (2000) Impact of mass pheromone trapping on red palm weevil: adult population and infestation level in date palm gardens of Saudi Arabia. Planter 76, 347– 355. Google Scholar Wattanapongsiri A (1966) A revision of the genera Rhynchophorus and Dynamis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Science Bulletin, Department of Agriculture, Bangkok 1, 1– 328. Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume38, Issue1April 2008Pages 55-59 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)