Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Maconellicoccus hirsutus

2005; Wiley; Volume: 35; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Catalão

10.1111/j.1365-2338.2005.00903.x

1365-2338

Botany and Geology in Latin America and Caribbean

EPPO BulletinVolume 35, Issue 3 p. 413-415 Free Access Maconellicoccus hirsutus First published: 19 December 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2338.2005.00903.xCitations: 9 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 onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Identity Name: Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) Synonyms : Phenacoccus hirsutus Green Taxonomic position: Insecta: Hemiptera: Homoptera: Pseudococcidae Common names: pink hibiscus mealybug, pink mealybug, hibiscus mealybug (English); cochenille de l’hibiscus (French); Hibiscus-Schmierlaus (German) EPPO code: PHENHI Phytosanitary categorization: EPPO A1 action list no. 314 Hosts M. hirsutus attacks a wide range of predominantly woody plants, including many ornamentals. The ornamental Hibiscus rosa-sinensis is a typical host which is frequently attacked. Most of the recorded hosts are tropical plants hardly or not cultivated in the EPPO region. Other recorded host plants which could be of significance for the EPPO region are avocado, banana, citrus, cotton, grapevine and mulberry. Host records extend to 76 families and over 200 genera, with some preference for Fabaceae, Malvaceae and Moraceae (Mani, 1989; Garland, 1998). Geographical distribution M. hirsutus is native to southern Asia, and has spread to other parts of the world: Africa, and more recently North America and Caribbean, where it is still extending its range (Kairo et al., 2000). EPPO region: absent Asia: Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China (Guangdong, Hong Kong, Macao, Shanxi, Xizhang, Yunnan), India (widespread), Indonesia (widespread), Japan (Ryukyu), Laos, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Yemen Africa: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Kenya, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania (including Zanzibar), Zaire, Zambia. There is an erroneous record for Algeria North America: Mexico (1999), USA (California 1999, Florida 2002, Hawaii 1983) Central America & Caribbean: Anguilla (1996), Antigua & Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas (2000), Barbados (2000), Belize (1999), British Virgin Islands (1997), Dominica (2001), Dominican Republic (2002), Grenada (1994), Guadeloupe (1998), Guatemala, Haiti (2002), Jamaica, Martinique (1999), Montserrat (1998), Netherlands Antilles (1996), Puerto Rico (1997), St Kitts & Nevis (1995), Saint Lucia (1996), Saint Vincent & Grenadines (1997), Trinidad & Tobago (1995), US Virgin Islands (1997) South America: French Guiana (1997), Guyana (1997), Suriname (2001), Venezuela (1999) Oceania: Australia (Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia), Guam, Micronesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Western Samoa EU: absent Distribution map: see CABI/EPPO (2004) Biology The life cycle of M. hirsutus has been studied in India. Each adult female lays 150–600 eggs over a period of about one week, and these hatch in 6–9 days (Bartlett, 1978; Mani, 1989). A generation is completed in about five weeks in warm conditions. In countries with a cool winter, the species survives cold conditions as eggs (Bartlett, 1978) or other stages, both on the host plant and in the soil (Pollard, 1995). There may be as many as 15 generations per year (Pollard, 1995). Small ‘crawlers’ (0.3 mm long) are readily transported by water, wind or animal agents. Crawlers settle in cracks and crevices, usually on new growth which becomes severely stunted and distorted, in which densely packed colonies develop. There are three immature instars in the female and four in the male. Reproduction is mostly parthenogenetic in Egypt (Hall, 1921) and Bihar (IN) (Singh & Ghosh, 1970), but M. hirsutus is bi-parental in West Bengal (IN) (Ghose, 1971b; 1972a) and probably in the Caribbean (Williams, 1996). Infestations of M. hirsutus are often associated with attendant ants (Ghose, 1970; Mani, 1989). Detection and identification Symptoms Infested growing points become stunted and swollen. This varies according to the susceptibility of each host species. In highly susceptible plants, even brief probing of unexpanded leaves causes severe crumpling of the leaves, and heavy infestation can cause defoliation and even death of the plant. As the plant dies back, the mealybugs migrate to healthy tissue, so the colonies migrate from shoot tips to twigs to branches and finally down the trunk. The mealybugs themselves are in general readily visible, though sometimes hidden in the swollen growth. Morphology Eggs pink. Crawlers 0.3 mm long, pink; immature females and newly matured females greyish-pink, dusted with mealy white wax; adult female 2.5–4 mm long, soft-bodied, elongate oval and slightly flattened. Entire colony becoming covered by white, waxy ovisac material. Slide-mounted females show the combination of 9-segmented antennae, anal lobe bars, numerous dorsal oral rim ducts on all parts of the body except the limbs and long, flagellate dorsal setae. This makes the species fairly easy to recognize in parts of the world where other Maconellicoccus species do not occur. Males have one pair of very simple wings, long antennae, white wax filaments projecting posteriorly and no mouthparts. See also the EPPO diagnostic protocol for this species (OEPP/EPPO, 2006). Pathways for movement M. hirsutus can spread locally by wind dispersal of the crawler stage. However, long-distance movement is most probable on plants for planting of host species. Cut flowers and fruits could possibly also carry the pest, though with less chance of its moving to endangered hosts. Pest significance Economic impact In its native range, M. hirsutus has been recorded causing economic damage to many crops. In India, losses have been reported for: cotton (Dhawan et al., 1980; Muralidharan & Badaya, 2000); the fibre crops Hibiscus sabdariffa, Hibiscus cannabinus and Boehmeria nivea (Ghose, 1961; 1971a; Singh & Ghosh, 1970; Raju et al., 1988); grapevine (Manjunath, 1985); mulberry (Rao et al., 1993); pigeonpea (Patel et al., 1990); Zizyphus mauritiana (Balikai & Bagali, 2000). Presumably, many ornamental woody plants are also affected, but populations and damage may be limited by natural enemies. In the Caribbean, where M. hirsutus has recently become established and biological control is only beginning to be used, damage to crops and environment has been heavy. For example, annual losses in Grenada are estimated at 3.5 million USD before establishment of biological control (François, 1996). Similar losses have been estimated in various other Caribbean islands. Various ornamentals important to the tourist industry have been attacked, and also important forest trees such as Hibiscus elatus and Tectona grandis (Pollard, 1995; Peters & Watson, 1999; Kairo et al., 2000). Affected countries suffered serious loss of trade because other countries would not accept shipments of agricultural produce from them (Peters & Watson, 1999). If the mealybug were to spread across the southern USA, it is estimated that it could cause losses of 750 million USD per year (Moffit, 1999). Williams (1996) notes that almost all serious damage by M. hirsutus has been recorded between 7° and 30° North, where there are reports of seasonal differences in the incidence of the pest. Control Plant protection products are of limited effectiveness against M. hirsutus because of its habit of hiding in crevices, and the waxy covering of its body (Williams, 1996). In India, most granular insecticides are ineffective against M. hirsutus (Mani, 1989); systemic insecticides are only used to control heavy infestations. Inorganic oil emulsion sprays gave good control of M. hirsutus on guava. Any insecticide used against M. hirsutus should be carefully selected to avoid injury to its natural enemies. IPM using both coccinellid beetle predators and insecticides (dichlorvos and chlorpyrifos) has been achieved on grapevine (Mani, 1989). Biological control by release of natural enemies has proved very successful. Cryptolaemus montrouzieri has been used successfully to reduce large populations of M. hirsutus in India (Karnataka) (Mani & Krishnamoorthy, 2001) and the Caribbean (Kairo et al., 2000). In Egypt, C. montrouzieri was unable to survive the cold of winter in sufficient numbers to be effective, and the main biological control agents used are the parasitoids Anagyrus kamali and Achrysopophagus sp. (Bartlett, 1978). A. kamali has also been introduced into the Caribbean (Pollard, 1995; Garland, 1998; Michaud & Evans, 2000; Kairo et al., 2000). The success of the biological control programme in the Caribbean, using C. montrouzieri and A. kamali can be attributed to their rapid rate of reproduction, and to a public awareness programmes to reduce use of plant protection products (Kairo et al., 2000). Little information is available on host-plant resistance or on methods of cultural control. Phytosanitary risk M. hirsutus has attracted worldwide attention by its appearance and rapid spread in the Caribbean. It spread similarly in Africa in the past. It is a highly invasive species, readily carried by plants in international trade. For the EPPO region, it may be noted that M. hirsutus has long been present in Egypt and Lebanon, without any further spread. However, conditions in the whole of the southern Mediterranean area would very probably be suitable for its establishment. If more widely introduced, it would probably cause significant damage to numerous woody amenity plants, and possibly to certain crops (cotton, grapevine). There is also a possibility that it could affect glasshouse crops in more northern countries. However, general control of scales and mealybugs is routine under glasshouse conditions. Its presence in EPPO countries would probably affect export markets, since it is regulated as a quarantine pest by many countries in other continents. Its impact could probably, in due course, be moderated by the introduction of the appropriate biological control agents. Phytosanitary measures M. hirsutus was added in 2003 to the EPPO A1 action list, and endangered EPPO member countries are thus recommended to regulate it as a quarantine pest. It is relatively easy to detect by inspection, so the basic requirement is that imported consignments of plants for planting should be free from the pest. In addition, the more endangered countries could require that host plants of M. hirsutus imported from countries where the pest occurs should originate in a pest-free area, or in a pest-free place of production (immediate vicinity included). Acknowledgement The CABI Crop Protection Compendium was used as a major source of information for this data sheet. References Balikai RA & Bagali AN (2000) Population density of mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus on ber (Zizyphus mauritiana) and economic losses. Agricultural Science Digest 20, 62– 63. Bartlett BR (1978) Pseudococcidae. In: Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds: a World Review (Ed. CP Clausen), pp. 137– 170. Agriculture Handbook no. 480. USDA, Washington (US). CABI/EPPO (2004) Maconellicoccus hirsutus. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, no. 100. CAB International, Wallingford (GB). Dhawan AK, Joginder Singh & Sidhu AS (1980) Maconellicoccus sp. attacking arboreum cotton in Punjab. Science and Culture 46, 258. François B (1996) Measuring the impact of mealybug infestation. Proceedings of the First Symposium on the Hibiscus Mealybug in the Caribbean, 24–27 June 1996, Grenada. Garland JA (1998) Pest Risk Assessment of the pink mealybug Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green), with particular reference to Canadian greenhouses. PRA 96–21. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Ottawa (CA). Ghose SK (1961) Studies of some coccids (Coccoidea: Hemiptera) of economic importance in West Bengal, India. Indian Agriculturist 5, 57– 78. Ghose SK (1970) Predators, parasites and attending ants of the mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus. Plant Protection Bulletin, India 22, 22– 30. Ghose SK (1971a) Assessment of loss in yield of seeds of roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa var. altissima) due to the mealy-bug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 41, 360– 362. Ghose SK (1971b) Morphology of various instars of both sexes of the mealy-bug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 41, 602– 611. Hall WJ (1921) The hibiscus mealy bug (Phenacoccus hirsutus). Bulletin Ministry of Agriculture Egypt Technical and Scientific Service Entomological Section 17, 1– 28. Kairo MTK, Pollard GV, Peterkin DD & Lopez VF (2000) Biological control of the hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus in the Caribbean. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 5, 241– 254. Mani M (1989) A review of the pink mealybug –Maconellicoccus hirsutus. Insect Science and its Application 10, 157– 167. Mani M & Krishnamoorthy A (2001) Suppression of Maconellicoccus hirsutus on guava. Insect Environment 6, 152. Manjunath TM (1985) India –Maconellicoccus hirsutus on grapevine. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin 33, 74. Michaud JP & Evans GA (2000) Current status of pink hibiscus mealybug in Puerto Rico including a key to parasitoid species. Florida Entomologist 83, 97– 101. Moffit LJ (1999) Economic risk to United States agriculture of pink hibiscus mealybug invasion. Report to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture . USDA/APHIS, Beltsville (US). Muralidharan CM & Badaya SN (2000) Mealy bug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus) outbreak on herbaceum cotton (Gossypium herbaceum) in Wagad cotton belt of Kachch. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 70, 705– 706. OEPP/EPPO (2006) EPPO Standards PM 7/71 Maconellicoccus hirsutus. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 36 (1) (in press). Patel IS, Dodia DA & Patel SN (1990) First record of Maconellicoccus hirsutus as a pest of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 60, 645. Peters T & Watson GW (1999) The biological control of Hibiscus mealybug in Grenada. In: Paths to Prosperity: Science and Technology in the Commonwealth 1999/2000 (Ed. K Bell), pp. 130– 132. Kensington Publications, London (GB). Pollard GV (1995) Pink or hibiscus mealybug in the Caribbean. CARAPHIN News 12, 1– 2. Raju AK, Rao PRM, Apparao RV, Readdy AS & Rao KKP (1988) Note on estimation of losses in yield of mesta due to mealy bug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus. Jute Development Journal 8, 34– 35. Rao AA, Teotia RS, Chauhan SS, Chakraborty S & Rao GS (1993) Studies on the seasonal incidence of the mealy bug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus) causing ‘tukra’ on mulberry in West Bengal. Indian Journal of Sericulture 32, 111– 113. Singh MP & Ghosh SN (1970) Studies on Maconellicoccus hirsutus causing ‘bunchy top’ in mesta. Indian Journal of Science and Industry A 4, 99– 105. Williams DJ (1996) A brief account of the hibiscus mealybug Maconellicoccus hirsutus, a pest of agriculture and horticulture, with descriptions of two related species from southern Asia. Bulletin of Entomological Research 86, 617– 628. Citing Literature Volume35, Issue3December 2005Pages 413-415 ReferencesRelatedInformation