Rangaswamy Muniappan

Biological Control of Tropical Weeds using Arthropods

1. Biological control of weeds in the tropics and sustainability R. Muniappan, G. V. P. Reddy and A. Raman 2. Acacia nilotica ssp. Indica (L.) Willd. ex Del. (Mimosaceae) K. Dhileepan 3. Australian Acacia species (Mimosaceae) in South Africa F. Impson, J. H. Hoffmann and C. Kleinjan 4. Ageratina adenophora (Sprengel) R. King and H. Robinson (Asteraceae) R. Muniappan, A. Raman and G. V. P. Reddy 5. Azolla filiculoides Lamarck (Nostocaceae) M. P. Hill and A. J. McConnachie 6. Cabomba caroliniana Gray (Cabombaceae) S. Schooler, W. Cabrera-Walsh and M. H. Julien 7. Invasive cactus species (Cactaceae) H. Zimmermann, C. Moran and J. H. Hoffmann 8. Chromolaena odorata (L.) R. King and H. Robinson (Asteraceae) C. Zachariades, M. Day, R. Muniappan and G. V. P. Reddy 9. Clidemia hirta (L.) D. Don (Melastomataceae) P. Conant 10. Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt (Cucurbitaceae) R. Muniappan, G. V. P. Reddy and A. Raman 11. Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms-Laub. (Pontederiaceae) J. A. Coetzee, M. P. Hill, M. H. Julien, T. D. Center and H. A. Cordo 12. Lantana camara Linn. (Verbenaceae) M. D. Day and M. P. Zalucki 13. Mimosa diplotricha C. Wright ex Sauvalle (Mimosaceae) L. S. Kuniata 14. Mimosa pigra L. (Leguminosae) T. A. Heard and Q. Paynter 15. Parthenium hysterophorus L. (Asteraceae) K. Dhileepan and L. Strathie 16. Passiflora mollissima (HBK) Bailey (Passifloraceae) G. P. Markin 17. Pistia stratiotes L. (Araceae) P. Neuenschwander, M. H. Julien, T. D. Center and M. P. Hill 18. Prosopis species (Leguminosae) R. D. van Klinken, J. H. Hoffmann, H. G. Zimmermann and A. P. Roberts 19. Salvinia molesta D. S. Mitchell (Salviniaceae) M. H. Julien, M. P. Hill and P. W. Tipping 20. Solanum mauritianum Scopoli (Solanaceae) T. Olckers 21. Application of natural antagonists including arthropods to resist weedy Striga (Scrophulariaceae) in tropical agroecosystems J. Sauerborn and D. Muller-Stover 22. Biological control of weeds in India J. Rabindra and B. S. Bhumannavar 23. The role of International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in weed biological control F. Beed and T. Dubois 24. The role of Secretariat of the Pacific Community in the biological control of weeds in the Pacific Islands region - past, present and future activities W. Orapa Index.

Present Status of Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in the Mariana Islands and Its Control by Two Fortuitously Introduced Natural Enemies

ABSTRACT The mealybug Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), attacks ornamental and fruit crops in the Mariana Islands. Insecticides cannot penetrate the heavy layers of wax that protect the insects body. We surveyed the mealybugs locally recruited natural enemies and their effects on its population on Guam, Rota, Saipan, and Tinian to assess the need for introduction of exotic natural enemies. We monitored population densities of M. hirsutus, those of its natural enemies, and parasitism rates for 3 yr, 2005–2007. Our surveys revealed the presence of two parasitoids, Anagyrus kamali Moursi (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) and Allotropa sp. near mecrida (Walker) (Hymenoptera: Platygastridae), fortuitously introduced to the Mariana Islands with M. hirsutus. The predator Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) also was often found feeding on M. hirsutus. Population density of M. hirsutus was below the economic threshold at all locations. Rainfall seemed to affect mean numbers of M. hirsutus and mean numbers of eggs at some locations. On all four islands, the two parasitoids, complemented by the predator, were effectively controlling the M. hirsutus population. No evidence of hyperparasitism was recorded. Currently, economic damage by M. hirsutus is not a concern in the Mariana Islands, and additional parasitoids need not be introduced to control M. hirsutus.

Biology and host specificity of gall-inducing Acythopeus burkhartorum (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), a biological-control agent for the invasive weed Coccinia grandis (Cucurbitaceae) in Guam and Saipan

An introduced cucurbit Coccinia grandis (Linnaeus) Voigt has grown into problem proportions in Hawaii and the Pacific islands of Guam and Saipan. The biology of Acythopeus burkhartorum O’Brien, 1998, a potential biological-control agent of C. grandis, has been described. By inducing the gall – a sink for nutrients – and by deriving nutrition, A. burkhartorum places C. grandis under stress. Especially during the late larval stage, the weevil displays an unusual behaviour of shredding dry gall tissues with its mandibles to ‘prepare’ the ‘pupal case’ and using the shredded sclerenchyma fibres to fill the open and cut ends of the pupal case. This ability to ‘create’ such a pupal case is unique among weevils. Because A. burkhartorum is able to sever tender shoots of C. grandis at points where galls are induced, we consider that this weevil will be highly relevant in C. grandis management. Although nongall-inducing species of baridine weevils have a wide host range, the known gallinducing species are specific to their respective hosts, similar to the majority of gall-inducing insects. A. burkhartorum prefer consistently either petioles or stems, behave identically by tunnelling through soft tissues within the host organs, and induce galls. Because of the potential of A. burkhartorum in biological control of C. grandis, we tested its specificity against C. grandis and Zehneria guamensis (an endemic cucurbit of Guam and Mariana Islands), following ‘choice’ and ‘no choice’ test modes. No feeding hole or gall development occurred on Z. guamensis indicating a categorical response that A. burkhartorum is specific to C. grandis. This result encouraged field release of A. burkhartorum in Guam and Saipan.

Arthropod pests of horticultural crops in tropical Asia

1. ARTHROPOD PESTS AND THEIR NATURAL ENEMIES ON HORTICULTURAL CROPS IN TROPICAL ASIA 2. PESTS OF MAJOR VEGETABLE CROPS 2.1 Pests of Beans (Phaseolus spp., Vigna sp., and others, Fabaceae) 2.2 Pests of Cabbage and other Crucifers (Cruciferae) 2.3 Pests of Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz, Euphorbiaceae) 2.4 Pests of Cucurbits (Cucurbitaceae) 2.5 Pests of Eggplant (Brinjal) (Solanum melongina L. Solanceae) 2.6 Pests of Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L. Malvaceae) 2.7 Pests of Onion (Allium cepa L., Alliaceae) 2.8 Pests of Pepper (Capsicum annuum L. and C. frutescens L., Solanaceae) 2.9 Pests of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L., Solanaceae) 2.10 Pests of Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam., Convolvulaceae) 2.11 Pests of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum (L., Solanaceae) 3. PESTS OF MINOR VEGETABLE CROPS 3.1 Pests of Amaranths (Amaranthus spp., Amaranthaceae) 3.2 Pests of Beetroot (Beta vulgaris L., Chenopodiaceae) 3.3 Pests of Carrot (Daucus carota L., Apiaceae) 3.4 Pests of Kangkong, water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica Forsk., Convolvulaceae) 4. PESTS OF MAJOR FRUIT CROPS 4.1 Pests of Bananas (Musa spp., Musaceae) 4.2 Pests of Citrus (Citrus spp., Rutaceae) 4.3 Pests of Guava (Psidium guajava L., Myrtaceae) 4.4 Pests of Mango (Mangifera indica L., Anacardiaceae) 4.5 Pests of Papaya (Carica papaya L., Caricaceae) 4.6 Pests of Pineapple (Ananas comosus Merr., Bromeliaceae) 5. PESTS OF MINOR FRUIT CROPS 5.1 Pests of Avocado (Persea americana Mill., Lauraceae) 5.2 Pests of Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg, Moraceae) 5.3 Pests of Caimito, Cainito, or Star Apple (Chrysophyllum cainito L., Sapotaceae) 5.4 Pests of Carambola or Star Fruit (Averrhoa carambola L., Oxalidaceae) 5.5 Pests of Durian (Durio zibethinus Murr., Bombacaceae) 5.6 Pests of Jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus Lamk., Moraceae) 5.7 Pests of Lanzones or Langsat (Lansium domesticum Correa, Meliaceae) 5.8 Pests of Litchi (Litchi chinensis Sonn., Sapindaceae) 5.9 Pests of Mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana L., Guittiferae) 5.10 Pests of Passion Fruit (Passiflora edulis Sims, Passifloraceae) 5.11 Pests of Pomegranate (Punica granatum L., Punicaceae) 5.12 Pests of Rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum L., Sapindaceae) 5.13 Pests of Santol (Sandoricum koejapi Merr. (Sandoricum indicum Cav.), Meliaceae) 5.14 Pests of Sapodilla (Manilkara zapota (L.) P. van Royen, Sapotaceae) 5.15 Pests of Soursop (Annona muricata L., Annonaceae) 5.16 Pests of Sweetsop, Atis, or Custard Apple (Annona squamosa L., Annonaceae) 5.17 Pests of Tamarind (Tamarindus indica L., Fabaceae) 5.18 Pests of Ziziphus (Ziziphus jujuba Miller, Rhamnaceae) 6. PESTS OF OTHER CROPS 6.1 Pests of Cashew (Anacardium occidentale L., Anacardiaceae) 6.2 Pests of Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L., Sterculiaceae) 6.3 Pests of Coffee (Coffea arabica L. and C. canephora Pierre, Rubiaceae) 6.4 Pests of Tea (Camellia sinensis L., Theaceae).

Response of Melittia oedipus (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) to Visual Cues Is Increased by the Presence of Food Source

ABSTRACT Visual and olfactory cues were shown to mediate short-distance orientation to different colors in the presence and in the absence of food in Melittia oedipus Oberthür (Lepidoptera Sesiidae), a biological control agent of Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt (Violales: Cucurbitaceae). Yellow was the color most preferred by M. oedipus, and adults landed significantly more on yellow paper moistened with honey-water. The next preferred colors were gray and white with the identical food source. Colors such as red, blue, green, brown, and black were least preferred by M. oedipus and attracted the adults on par with each other. The M. oedipus landings on petri dishes which held yellow-, gray-, and white-colored papers were significantly higher than the colorless petri dishes with olfactory stimuli only. There was no significant difference in landings on different-colored papers moistened with honey-water or with water alone in the morning compared with those in the evening. The cumulative response of M. oedipus to different-colored papers moistened with honey-water was significantly higher than the colored papers moistened with water only. Correspondingly, the response of M. oedipus to yellow-colored paper moistened with honey-water was significantly higher than the yellow-colored paper moistened with water only. Therefore, yellow paper moistened with honey-water can increase the feeding rate of M. oedipus and can be a potential technique in developing mass cultures for field release to control the invasive weed.

Integrated Pest Management of Tropical Vegetable Crops

The global population, by 2050, is estimated to reach nine billion people. Studies show that during the years 2000–2010, worldwide crop production increased at a rate of 23 % while the number of harvested acres increased at only 9 %. In order for supply to meet the growing demand, farmers need to maximize their yield. In fact, crop yields have fallen in many areas because of declining investments in research and infrastructure, as well as increasing water scarcity, land degradation, climate change and biotic stresses (insect pests, weeds, pathogens and vertebrates). Innovative crop protection is a vital element in the science behind increasing crop yields. The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach has the potential to reduce the probability of catastrophic losses to pests, minimizes the extent of environmental degradation and contributes to food security. The modern concept of pest management is based on ecological principles and includes the integration and synthesis of different components/control tactics into an Integrated Pest Management system. IPM, in turn, is a component of the agroecosystem management technology for sustainable crop production. The IPM control tactics are (1) Biological control: protection, enhancement and release of natural enemies, (2) Cultural practices: crop rotations, sowing time, cover cropping, intercropping, crop residue management, mechanical weed control, (3) Chemical: minimizing the use of synthetic pesticides in favor of biopesticides (fungi, bacteria and viruses) and biochemical pesticides (insect growth regulators, pheromones and hormones—naturally occurring chemicals that modify pest behavior and reproduction and (4) Resistant varieties: varieties bred using conventional, biotechnological and transgenic approaches. The effective transfer of IPM technology and its adoption by farmers are vital in increasing food production. Participatory IPM research, through its involvement of farmers, marE.A. Heinrichs (*) IPM Innovation Lab, Asia Program Manager, 6517 S. 19th St., Lincoln, NE 68512, USA e-mail: eheinrichs2@unl.edu R. Muniappan IPM Innovation Lab, OIRED, Virginia Tech, 526 Prices Fork Road, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA e-mail: rmuni@vt.edu

IPM for Food and Environmental Security in the Tropics

The global population, by 2050, is estimated to reach nine billion people. Studies show that during the years 2000–2010, worldwide crop production increased at a rate of 23 % while the number of harvested acres increased at only 9 %. In order for supply to meet the growing demand, farmers need to maximize their yield. In fact, crop yields have fallen in many areas because of declining investments in research and infrastructure, as well as increasing water scarcity, land degradation, climate change and biotic stresses (insect pests, weeds, pathogens and vertebrates).

Integrated Pest Management for Onion in India

Onion is one of the major commercial vegetables in India, and the main limiting factor for higher production of this crop is the incidence of pests and diseases. To reduce the pesticide treadmill, efforts were made to evaluate five different onion IPM modules at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in India. These include the bio-intensive module comprising of selection of healthy seed bulbs, bulb treatment with Pseudomonas fluorescens and Trichoderma viride, soil amendment with biopesticides and biofertilizers, foliar application of biopesticides, and need based application of chemical pesticides. These were found to be effective in checking onion pests and diseases. The onion IPM was further fine-tuned with additional IPM components, barrier crop of maize and pheromone and sticky traps. It was demonstrated in larger fields in farm holdings of Tamil Nadu under the Integrated Pest Management Collaborative Research Support Program (IPM CRSP) and now, IPM Innovation Lab of USAID during 2009–2013 through technology transfer programs viz., demonstrations, field days, radio, farm visits, publications and others. Impact assessment on onion IPM package revealed reduced production costs, increased bulb yield, and higher economic returns.

Sap-sucking insect records (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha and Thysanoptera: Thripidae) from Indonesia.

Abstract Sap-sucking insects (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha and Thysanoptera: Thripidae) collected in Java, Sumatra and Sulawesi were identified. From 28 samples collected on 9 crop and ornamental host-plant species, 21 species of sap-sucking insects were identified, 12 (57%) of which were new island distribution records. This suggests that the Indonesian insect fauna has not been documented for a long time. The new distribution records are: from Java, Lepidosaphes gloverii (Packard) (Diaspididae); from Sumatra, Clavaspidiotus apicalis Takagi (Diaspididae); and from Sulawesi, Coccus hesperidum L. (Coccidae), Saissetia coffeae (Walker) (Coccidae), Aulacaspis yasumatsui Takagi (Diaspididae), Hemiberlesia palmae (Cockerell) (Diaspididae), Lepidosaphes tokionis (Kuwana) (Diaspididae), Microparlatoria fici (Takahashi) (Diaspididae), Pseudaulacaspis cockerelli (Cooley) (Diaspididae), Icerya aegyptiaca (Douglas) (Monophlebidae), I. pulchra (Leonardi) (Monophlebidae) and Selenothrips rubrocinctus (Giard) (Thripidae). Clavaspidiotus apicalis could become a potentially invasive pest of citrus.

IPM Packages for Tropical Vegetable Crops

This chapter describes the contrasting differences in the evolution of integrated pest management in developed and developing countries and the current status of IPM in developed countries relative to that of the developing countries. IPM in developed countries that has evolved over the past 50 years has digressed and now emphasizes control with the application of pesticides and pesticide resistance management. In contrast, IPM in developing countries emphasizes avoidance via cultural control, physical control, host plant resistance, botanical pesticides, biopesticides, behavioral manipulation, landscape management, conservation of natural enemies and biological control. The IPM packages consisting of the above technologies are detailed. The effective IPM technology transfer approach as developed by the IPM Innovation Lab is explained.