Rhynchophorus palmarum
2005; Wiley; Volume: 35; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Galês
10.1111/j.1365-2338.2005.00883.x
ISSN1365-2338
Tópico(s)Insect Pest Control Strategies
ResumoEPPO BulletinVolume 35, Issue 3 p. 468-471 Free Access Rhynchophorus palmarum First published: 19 December 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2338.2005.00883.xCitations: 11 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: Rhynchophorus palmarum (Linnaeus 1758) Synonyms: Calandra palmarum (Linnaeus) 1801, Cordyle barbirostris Thunberg 1797, Cordyle palmarum (Linnaeus) 1797, Curculio palmarum Linnaeus 1758, Rhynchophorus cycadis Erichson 1847, Rhynchophorus depressus Chevrolet 1880, Rhynchophorus languinosus Chevrolet 1880 Taxonomic position: Insecta : Coleoptera : Curculionidae Common names: palm weevil, palm-marrow weevil, South American palm weevil (English); charançon du palmier (French); casanga, gorgojo cigarrón, gorgojo cigarrón del cocotero, gorgojo prieto de la palma, gualpa mayate prieto del cocotero, picudo de la palma de coco, picudo del cocotero, picudo negro de la palma (Spanish); neotropischer Palmen-Rüssler (German); broca-do-olho-do-coqueiro (Portuguese) EPPO code: RHYCPA Phytosanitary categorization: EPPO A1 action list no. 332 Hosts R. palmarum has been reported on 35 plant species of 12 different families, but is found predominantly on Arecaceae (Esser & Meredith, 1987; Griffith, 1987; Wattanapongsiri, 1966; Jaffé & Sánchez, 1990; Sánchez & Cerda, 1993). It has only been reported as a pest on palms and on sugarcane (Arango & Rizo, 1977; Restrepo et al., 1982). When reported on other plants, R. palmarum was feeding on ripe fruits, but was not causing economic damage. The main hosts are Cocos nucifera, Elaeis guineensis, Euterpe edulis, Metroxylon sagu, Phoenix canariensis, Phoenix dactylifera, Saccharum officinarum. Non-significant hosts (adult feeding only) are Ananas comosus, Annona reticulata, Artocarpus altilis, Carica papaya, Citrus spp., Mangifera indica, Musa spp., Persea americana, Psidium guajava, Theobroma cacao. Geographical distribution As reported by Wattanapongsiri (1966), the genus Rhynchophorus has an extensive worldwide distribution, but is concentrated in the tropics. North America: Mexico Caribbean and Central America: Belize, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, El Salvador, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Honduras, Martinique, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico, St Vincent, Trinidad and Tobago South America: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil (Alagoas, Amazonas, Bahia, Matto Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Pará, Sergipe), Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Surinam, Uruguay, Venezuela EU: absent Distribution map: See CABI/EPPO (1969) Biology R. palmarum is common in virgin forests and in agroecosystems exploiting oil palms. The altitudinal range is from sea level up to 1200 m (Jaffé & Sánchez, 1990). Studies on the biology of this species are reported in Wilson (1963), Nadarajan (1988), Sánchez et al. (1993) and Hagley (1965). The larvae of R. palmarum feed exclusively on live vegetative tissue. Under laboratory conditions (20–35°C and 62–92% relative humidity), a female may lay an average of 245 ± 155 eggs during a period of 30.7 ± 14.3 days. The incubation period is 3.2 ± 0.93 days and the larvae have between six and 10 instars over a period of 52.0 ± 10.0 days. The prepupal stage lasts 4–17 days, during which the larvae make a cocoon using vegetative fibres. The pupal metamorphosis period lasts for 8–23 days and the adults remain in the cocoon for 7.8 ± 3.4 days before emerging. Adult males may live for 44.7 ± 17.2 days and females for 40.7 ± 15.5 days. Hagley (1965) reported that a single female may lay up to 718 eggs, whereas Sánchez et al. (1993) reported a maximal oviposition of 697 eggs. Nadarajan (1988) and Sánchez et al. (1993) studied the biology of the insect using alternative rearing methods with artificial diets, and the behaviour of the insect including courtship, mating and oviposition in the laboratory. They indicated that the females deposit their eggs into holes in the plant made by the rostrum (normally when the surface of the plant tissue presents some damage, near or on the internodal area of the palm trunk next to the crown). Eggs are then oviposited individually in randomly distributed holes. The egg rests in a vertical position in the hole which is sealed by the female with a brown waxy secretion. The adults are active during the day showing a bimodal daily activity cycle. Hagley (1965) reported major activity peaks between 7 and 11, and 17 and 19 h. Sánchez & Jaffé (1993) observed flight activity in the field, confirming the binomial nature of the activity cycle, in which adults fly only with sunlight, but avoiding the hottest hours at noon and the early afternoon. Field observations showed that adults may fly at velocities of 6.01 m s−1 (Hagley, 1965). When using attractive odours a distinct chemotropic and anemotropic behaviour is evident (Sánchez & Jaffé, 1993). Studies on the population dynamics of this species in Central America are reported by Chinchilla (1988), showing that the maximum adult population occurs during the dry season. Similar results were obtained by Schuiling & Van Dinther (1981) in Brazil. Bain & Fedon (1951) determined that R. palmarum is the most important vector of the nematode Rhadinaphelenchus cocophilus, which causes red-ring disease of coconut. The contamination of healthy plants with red-ring disease occurs only if insect vectors are present. The nematode is an obligate parasite distributed in all tissues of the plant. Red-ring disease has reached epiphytotic levels in the past (Griffith, 1968). Detection and identification Symptoms The external symptoms on infested palms are a progressive yellowing of the foliar area, destruction of the emerging leaf and necrosis in the flowers. Leaves start to dry in ascending order in the crown; the apical leaf bends and eventually drops. However, these external symptoms are not sufficient for clear identification. Internally, the galleries and damage to leaf-stems produced by the larvae are easily detected in heavily infested plants. Pupae and old larvae are frequently found when inspecting the crown of infested plants. Affected plant tissue turns foul, producing strong characteristic odours. Dynamis borassi, a sympatric and morphologically similar looking weevil, may cause similar damage. R. palmarum primarily attacks the apical region of palm crowns, and larvae remain inside the galleries they build. Thus, the pest can only be detected when damaged plants start to die, or by using pheromone-baited traps (Jafféet al., 1993; Chinchilla & Öhlschlager, 1992, 1993; Sánchez & Jaffé, 1993). Morphology The eggs, larvae and pupae are described by Wattanapongsiri (1966). Eggs Located individually 1–2 mm inside soft plant tissue, near the apical area of the palm, protected by a brown waxy secretion. The eggs are 2.5 × 1 mm in size, white and with rounded extremes. Old eggs often show undulatory movements of the emerging larvae, which show their darker cephalic coloration through the chorion of the egg. Larvae The larvae have no legs and are initially 3–4 mm long. They possess sclerotized mouth parts with strong mandibles. The larvae are cannibalistic. Their body is slightly curved ventrally and may reach 5–6 cm in length. Their colour is cream white. Prepupae become darker and before pupating they migrate to the periphery of their gallery in the trunk, floral rachis or leave stem. Pupae Exarate and light brown. The abdomen continuously makes undulatory movements when perturbed. Pupae inhabit a cylindrical-ovoid closed cocoon 7–9 cm long and 3–4 cm in diameter, built with plant fibres organized in a spiral configuration. Adults Adult R. palmarum have a black, hard cuticle and possess the characteristic elytra of Coleoptera, protecting the abdomen when closed. They measure 4–5 cm in length and are approximately 1.4 cm wide, weighing 1.6–2 g. The head is small and round with a characteristic long, ventrally curved rostrum. Adults show sexual dimorphism; males have a conspicuous batch of hairs on the antero-central dorsal region of the rostrum. Pathways for movement The pest can spread over long distances with movement of infected plants for planting of palms. Short distance spread is possible with adult flights. Pest significance Economic impact Countries reporting the largest damage to crops in palm plantations include Central America (Costa Rica), Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil. Since the beginning of this century, R. palmarum has been reported as one of the most important pests on commercial palm plantations, mainly of Cocos nucifera and Elaeis guineensis (Griffith, 1968, 1970; Dean, 1979; Fenwick, 1967; Sánchez & Cerda, 1993) and on ornamental palms. The larvae feed on the growing tissue in the crown of the palm, often destroying the apical growth area and causing eventual death of the palm. Economic damage depends on the palm species and on the number of larvae infesting the plant. Fenwick (1967) and Griffith (1968) reported that populations of 30 larvae are sufficient to cause the death of an adult coconut palm. In addition to direct damage, R. palmarum causes indirect damage as the vector of R. cocophilus. Infected coconut palms 3–10 years old die during the first 2 months after inoculation (Griffith, 1987). Thurston (1984) and Brathwaite & Siddiqi (1975) reported that infected plants take 23–28 days to show the symptoms of red-ring disease, and die 3–4 months after showing the first symptoms. Esser & Meredith (1987) estimated that several million USD are lost annually due to the association of red-ring disease and R. palmarum. They estimated that 800 ha of coconut plantations were abandoned in 1923 due to this disease, and that in Grenada 22% of the coconut palms were infested with red-ring disease. A similar situation seems to be common in other countries in America. Control Control strategies have to take into account that R. palmarum is a pest in its own right and a vector of R. cocophilus. At the moment, the control of red-ring disease is by control of the insect vector as no efficient control of the nematode exists. Chemical control of the insect, although often attempted, is not successful (Hagley, 1963). Cultural control consisting of the burning of affected trees reduces infestation. Chemical killing and drying of infected plants also reduces infestation (Victoria et al., 1970; Blair, 1970; Griffith, 1987), as larvae need living plant tissue in order to survive. The use of natural enemies against this pest may be possible, but has yet to be established. Moura et al. (1993) suggested that Paratheresia menezesi may be used to regulate populations of R. palmarum. The most widely used control methods are based on the capture of adults with traps baited with rotting plant materials, such as palm tissue, pineapple and sugar cane (Griffith, 1987; Dean, 1979; Morin et al., 1986; Genty, 1988; Moura et al., 1990). Various different types of traps have been proposed in order to attract the insects and kill them in the trap with chemicals (methomyl, triclorfon and pirimifos-ethyl) (Dean, 1979). Yellow traps seem to be more efficient than those of other colours. The most modern versions of the trap use natural or synthetic aggregation pheromones to help attract the insects. Moura et al. (1989) and Rochat et al. (1991a) showed that males produce an aggregation pheromone, attracting males and females equally. Rochat et al. (1991a,b) identified the pheromone as 2(E)-6-methyl-2-hepten-4-ol, calling it rhynchophorol. It was found that male insects only release the pheromone when feeding. Jafféet al. (1993) showed that it was the smell of the appropriate plant odours, mainly ethyl acetate, that started the release by males of the aggregation pheromone, and that the aggregation pheromone alone only attracts insects up to a certain distance, after which plant odours are required to attract the insect into the trap. Öhlschlager et al. (1993) and Chinchilla & Öhlschlager (1992, 1993) evaluated pheromone-baited traps in the field. Various efficient trapping methods have been proposed (Moura et al., 1990, 1993; Chinchilla & Öhlschlager, 1992, 1993; Öhlschlager et al., 1992a,b; Vera & Orellana, 1988; Jafféet al., 1993; Sánchez & Jaffé, 1993), all based on containers which attract the insect with odours produced by plant tissue (mostly sugarcane) and the aggregation pheromone. The pheromone can be obtained either by commercial synthesis or by filling the trap with males, activating them with ethyl-acetate odours to induce production of the pheromone (Sánchez & Jaffé, 1993). Captured insects can then be killed with insecticide or by other means. Phytosanitary risk R. palmarum presents a significant risk to date palms in North Africa, and to ornamental palms planted throughout the Mediterranean region. It may also present some risk to sugarcane, grown in southern Mediterranean countries. There are at present no Rhynchophorus spp. attacking palms in the EPPO region, although there have been very limited outbreaks of the introduced Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, a similar species from Asia, in Spain, Israel and Jordan, where it is subject to containment measures1. Esteban Duran et al. (1998) suggest that R. palmarum is among the pests that could potentially be introduced to other countries of the EPPO region through imported plants for planting of palms. Though the agent of red-ring disease R. cocophilus, which is vectored by R. palmarum, presents a risk to tropical countries, where its known hosts oil palm and coconut (Brathwaite & Siddiqi, 1975) are grown, it does not appear to present a direct risk to the EPPO region. Phytosanitary measures R. palmarum was added in 2005 to the EPPO A1 action list, and endangered EPPO member countries are thus recommended to regulate it as a quarantine pest. Imported plants for planting of palms should originate in a pest-free area or come from a pest-free place of production. Footnotes 1 R. ferrugineus is being evaluated as a potential quarantine pest for the EPPO region and is likely to be added to the EPPO A2 action list shortly. References Arango G & Rizo D (1977) [Some considerations on the behaviour of Rhynchophorus palmarum and Metamasius hemipterus on sugarcane.] Revista Colombiana de Entomologia 3, 23– 28 (in Spanish). Bain F & Fedon C (1951) [Investigations on red ring of coconut.] Agronomia Tropical 1, 103– 130 (in Spanish). Blair G (1970) Studies on red ring disease of coconut palm. Oléagineux 25, 19– 22. Brathwaite C & Siddiqi M (1975) Description of Rhadinaphelenchus cocophilus. In: Description of Plant-Parasitic Nematodes, no. 72. CAB International, Wallingford (GB). CABI/EPPO (1969) Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, no. 259. Rhynchophorus palmarum. CAB International, Wallingford (GB). Chinchilla C (1988) [The red ring/small leaf syndrome in oil palm and coconut.] Boletín Técnico Oil Palm Operations (Costa Rica), 2, 4 (in Spanish). Chinchilla C & Öhlschlager AC (1992) Captures of Rhynchophorus palmarum in traps baited with the male-produced aggregation pheromone. ASD Oil Palm Papers 5, 1– 8. Chinchilla C & Öhlschlager AC (1993) [Traps for capture of adult Rhynchophorus palmarum, using the aggregation pheromone produced by the male.] Manejo Integrado de Plagas (Costa Rica) no. 29, 28– 35 (in Spanish). Dean C (1979) Red ring disease of Cocos nucifera caused by Rhadinaphelenchus cocophilus. An Annotated Bibliography and Review. CAB International, Wallingford (GB). Esser R & Meredith J (1987) Red ring nematode. Nematology Circular of the Florida Department of Agriculture no. 141, Gainesville (US). Esteban-Duran J, Yela JL, Beitia-Crispo F & Jiménez-Alvarez A (1998) Exotic curculinoids liable to be introduced into Spain and other countries of the European Union through imported vegetables. Boletín de Sanidad Vegetal Plagas 24, 23– 40. Fenwick D (1967) The effect of weevil control on the incidence of red ring disease. Journal of the Agricultural Society of Trinidad and Tobago 67, 231– 244. Genty P (1988) [Management and control of oil palm pests.] In: VI. Seminario sobre Problemas Fitopatológicos de la Palma Africana, pp. 101– 112. IICA-BID-Prociandino, Bogotá (CO). Griffith R (1968) The relationship between the red ring nematode and the palm weevil. Journal of the Agricultural Society of Trinidad and Tobago 68, 342– 356. Griffith R (1970) Control of red ring disease in coconut. Crop Bulletin of the Ministry of Agriculuture of Trinidad and Tobago 17, 1– 3. Griffith R (1987) Red ring disease of coconut palm. Plant Disease 71, 193– 196. Hagley E (1963) The role of the palm weevil as a vector of red ring disease of coconuts. Journal of Economic Entomology 56, 375– 380. Hagley E (1965) On the life history and habits of Rhynchophorus palmarum. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 58, 22– 28. Jaffé K & Sánchez P (1990) [ Final Report of Project on Ethological Study of Rhynchophorus palmarum.] Universidad Simón Bolívar-FONAIAP, Caracas (VE). Jaffé K, Sánchez P, Cerda H, Hernández JV, Jaffé R, Urdaneta N, Guerra G, Martínez R & Miras B (1993) Chemical ecology of Rhynchophorus palmarum: attraction to host plants and to a male-produced aggregation pheromone. Journal of Chemical Ecology 19, 1703– 1720. Morin J, Lucchini de F, Ferreira JM & Fraga L (1986) [Control of Rhynchophorus palmarum by traps constructed of oil-palm cubes.] Oléagineux 41, 61– 63 (in Spanish). Moura JIL, Mariau D & Delabie JHC (1993) Efficacy of Paratheresia menezesi for natural biological control of Rhynchophorus palmarum. Oléagineux 48, 219– 223. Moura J, Resende M, Ferreira M & Santana D (1990) [Tactics for integrated control of Rhynchophorus palmarum.] CEPLAC, Brasilia (BR) (in Portuguese). Moura J, Vilela E, Sgrillo R, Aguilar M & Resende M (1989) A behavioral olfactory study of Rhynchophorus palmarum in the field. Anais da Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil 18, 267– 274. Nadarajan L (1988) Laboratory rearing of the palm weevil Rhynchophorus palmarum on artificial diet. In: Rapport du Laboratoire des Médiateurs Chimiques. INRA, Versailles (FR). Öhlschlager A, Chinchilla C & González M (1992a) Management of Rhynchophorus palmarum and the red ring disease in oil palm by pheromone-based trapping. ASD Oil Palm Papers 5, 15– 23. Öhlschlager A, Pierce H, Morgan B, Wimalaratne P, Slessor K, King G, Gries G, Gries R, Borden J, Jirón L, Chinchilla C & Mexón R (1992b) Chirality and field testing of rhynchophorol, the aggregation pheromone of Rhynchophorus palmarum. Naturwissenschaften 79, 134– 135. Öhlschlager A, Chinchilla C, González L, Jirón L, Mexón R & Morgan B (1993) Development of pheromone-based trapping system for Rhynchophorus palmarum. Journal of Economic Entomology 86, 381– 1382. Restrepo L, Rivera F & Raigosa J (1982) [Life cycle, habit and morphometry of Metamasius hemipterus and Rhynchophorus palmarum on sugarcane.] Acta Agronómica 32, 33– 44 (in Spanish). Rochat D, Gonzalez A, Marian D, Villanueva A & Sagatti P (1991a) Evidence for male-produced aggregation pheromone in Rhynchophorus palmarum. Journal of Chemical Ecology 17, 1221– 1230. Rochat D, Malosse C, Lettere M, Ducrot PH, Zagatti P, Renou M & Descoins C (1991b) Male-produced aggregation pheromone of Rhynchophorus palmarum: collection, identification, electrophysiological activity, and laboratory bioassay. Journal of Chemical Ecology 17, 2127– 2141. Sánchez P & Cerda H (1993) [The complex Rhynchophorus palmarum/Bursaphelenchus cocophilus in palms.] Boletín di Entomología Venezolana 8, 1– 18 (in Spanish). Sánchez P, Jaffe K, Hernandez JV & Cerda H (1993) [Biology and behaviour of Rhynchophorus palmarum.] Boletín di Entomología Venezolana 8, 83– 93 (in Spanish). Sánchez P & Jaffé K (1993) [Monitoring and integrated control of Rhynchophorus palmarum on oil palm.] Boletín Técnico Serie B. FONAIAP, Caracas (VE). Schuiling M & Van Dinther J (1981) Red ring disease in the paricatuba oil palm estate, Brazil. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie 91, 154– 169. Thurston H (1984) Red ring disease of coconut. In: Tropical Plant Disease, pp. 161– 164 American Phytopathological Society, St Paul (US). Vera D & Orellana F (1988) [Control of Rhynchophorus palmarum in plantations of coconut and oil palm by trapping of adults.] Boletín Técnico del Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias Ecuador no. 198. Quito (EC) (in Spanish). Victoria K, Sanchéz P & Barriga O (1970) [Eradication of coconut palms affected by Rhadinaphelenchus cocophilus.] Revista del Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario 5, 185– 197 (in Spanish). Wattanapongsiri A (1966) A Revision of the Genera Rhynchophorus and Dynamis. Department of Agricultural Science, Bangkok (TH). Wilson M (1963) Investigations into the development of the palm weevil, Rhynchophorus palmarum. Tropical Agriculture Trinidad 40, 185– 196. Citing Literature Volume35, Issue3December 2005Pages 468-471 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)