Phenacoccus solenopsis (cotton mealybug)
Index
- Pictures
- Identity
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Description
- Distribution
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Introductions
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- Symptoms
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Climate
- Latitude/Altitude Ranges
- Air Temperature
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Plant Trade
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Diagnosis
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs
- References
- Links to Websites
- Contributors
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.
Generate reportIdentity
Top of pagePreferred Scientific Name
- Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley, 1898
Preferred Common Name
- cotton mealybug
Other Scientific Names
- Phenacoccus cevalliae Cockerell, 1902
- Phenacoccus gossypiphilous Abbas et al., 2005; 2007; 2008
International Common Names
- English: Solenopsis mealybug
Local Common Names
- Spanish: chanchito blanco del suelo
- Chile: soil mealybug
- France: cochenille du coton
- India: cotton mealy bug
- Pakistan: cotton mealy bug
- USA: Chinese hibiscus mealybug
Summary of Invasiveness
Top of pagePhenacoccus solenopsis is a mealybug native to North America that is now widespread. It has the ability to multiply rapidly, but is inefficient at dispersal unless assisted by wind, animals or machinery passing through the crop. When its dispersal is assisted, it can spread to vast areas where its host plants occur, in a relatively short period of time. The species is polyphagous and has been reported from host-plants in over 200 genera belonging to 64 families. After its original description from Boerhavia spicata and Kallstroemia californica in New Mexico, USA in 1898, P. solenopsis was not reported again until 1967. Later, in 1988, small, sporadic populations were reported on cotton in Runnels County, Texas, USA that spread 75 to 200 miles from the original site with contiguous populations reported by 1990. With the increase in international trade in live plant material over the last few decades this mealybug has been accidentally spread, and has been collected and identified on host material at international ports and in greenhouses outside its native range. P. solenopsis has become established as an invasive pest in the Afrotropical, Australasian, Nearctic, Neotropical, and Oriental regions. As an introduced species, P. solenopsis has the capability to cause direct economic and ecological damage to native fauna and flora, with heavy infestations reducing plant vigour and causing plant death
Taxonomic Tree
Top of page- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Hemiptera
- Suborder: Sternorrhyncha
- Unknown: Coccoidea
- Family: Pseudococcidae
- Genus: Phenacoccus
- Species: Phenacoccus solenopsis
Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Top of pagePhenacoccus solenopsis was initially described by Tinsley (1898a) from specimens infesting the roots and stems of Boerhavia spicata and Kallstroemia californica within the nests of the ant, Solenopsis geminata, in New Mexico, USA. Later, Tinsley (1898b) provided a brief description of the adult female collected on the roots of Atriplex canescens. Cockerell (1902) described the species Phenacoccus cevalliae from specimens on the host plant Cevallia sinuata obtained at Roswell, New Mexico, USA. This species name was listed by Fernald (1903), but later synonymized with P. solenopsis by Ferris (1950). The taxonomy of P. solenopsis is documented by García Morales et al. (2016). The adult female has since been redescribed by Ferris (1950), McKenzie (1967), Kosztarab (1996), Williams and Granara de Willink (1992), Granara de Willink and Szumik (2007), and Hodgson et al. (2008).
Miller and Kosztarab (1979) recognized morphological variations within P. solenopsis, inferring that it might consist of two cryptic sexual species. More recently, specimens on cotton (Gossypium spp.) in India with morphological traits that differed from the original description of P. solenopsis were described as a new species, P. gossypiphilous (Abbas et al., 2005; Abbas et al., 2008). However, because no type specimens were named in the original description of P.gossypiphilous, Hodgson et al. (2008) considered the name to be a nomen nudum. The presence of morphological variation among specimens of P. solenopsis in different regions of India often led to misidentification of the mealybug species (Asha and Ramamurthy, 2008). However, Hodgson et al. (2008) made a comprehensive morphological study and concluded that there were no significant differences between specimens from the Indian subcontinent and those from the Neotropics, so considered the name P. gossypiphilous to be a junior synonym of P. solenopsis.
Description
Top of pagePhenacoccus solenopsis is a bisexual species with multiple generations annually. The species can be identified using the morphology of the adult female with a fair degree of certainty, although its separation from P. solani can be difficult (Zhao et al., 2014; see Similarities to Other Species/Conditions section). The adult female is 2 to 5 mm long and 2 to 4 mm wide and is covered with a powdery white wax secretion, apart from two interrupted, longitudinal submedian dark bands formed of about six dark grey patches of bare cuticle on the pro- to metathoracic segments. Paired segmental wax filaments extend from the margin around the body, with the terminal pair of filaments longest. An ovisac of fluffy, loose-textured wax strands is produced (McKenzie, 1967; Kosztarab, 1996).
Slide-mounted females are distinguished by the presence of nine-segmented antennae, five-segmented legs with translucent pores on the hind femur and tibia, each claw with a minute tooth, two sizes of ventral oral collar tubular ducts, absence of quinquelocular pores, presence of a large circulus, and multilocular pores concentrated around the vulva and posterior abdominal segments, often with a few also present in the submarginal areas of the abdominal segments (McKenzie, 1961; 1967; Kosztarab, 1996; Hodgson et al., 2008). On the mesal area of abdominal segment VII the multilocular pores are present across the entire depth of the segment in P. solenopsis (Zhao et al., 2014). On the dorsum, 18 pairs of cerarii, each with two enlarged setae, are located around the margin. Oral rim and oral collar tubular ducts and multilocular pores are absent from the dorsum.
Female development consists of first-instar nymph (crawler), second- and third-instar nymphs and the adult, whereas males undergo first- and second-instar nymphal, prepupal, pupal and adult stages of development. Hodgson et al. (2008) provided comprehensive descriptions and illustrations for the immature stages of P. solenopsis. First-instar nymphs are separated from the other stages by possessing six-segmented antennae, no circulus, and have quinquelocular pores on the head, thorax and abdomen. Second-instar nymph has six-segmented antennae, 18 pairs of distinct cerarii around the margin of the body, lack quinquelocular pores, and the claw has a distinct denticle. The third-instar nymph has seven-segmented antennae and a circulus.
Distribution
Top of pagePhenacoccus solenopsis is widespread and has become established in a variety of regions ranging from arid to tropical. Due to the difficulty of identifying the species, it is likely to be more widespread than the countries listed below.
Distribution Table
Top of pageThe distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
Last updated: 12 May 2022Continent/Country/Region | Distribution | Last Reported | Origin | First Reported | Invasive | Reference | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Africa |
|||||||
Algeria | Present | Introduced | 2019 | Invasive | |||
Benin | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Cameroon | Present, Localized | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Egypt | Present | ||||||
Eswatini | Present | Introduced | Highveld, Lowveld and Lubombo regions. | ||||
Ethiopia | Present | Introduced | |||||
Ghana | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Kenya | Present | ||||||
Mali | Present | Introduced | |||||
Mauritius | Present | Introduced | |||||
Morocco | Present | ||||||
Nigeria | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Réunion | Present | ||||||
Senegal | Present | Introduced | |||||
Seychelles | Present | ||||||
Sierra Leone | Present | ||||||
Sudan | Present | ||||||
Asia |
|||||||
Bangladesh | Present | Introduced | |||||
Cambodia | Present | ||||||
China | Present | Introduced | 2005 | ||||
-Anhui | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Fujian | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Guangdong | Present, Widespread | 2009 | Introduced | 2008 | Invasive | Potential for spread throughout cotton-growing districts | |
-Guangxi | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Hainan | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Hubei | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Hunan | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Jiangsu | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Jiangxi | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Shanghai | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Sichuan | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Xinjiang | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Yunnan | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Zhejiang | Present | Invasive | |||||
Hong Kong | Present, Few occurrences | ||||||
India | Present | Introduced | 2004 | Invasive | Some people speculate the pest entered the country in 1999 on trade products. Now widespread in cotton growing regions. | ||
-Andhra Pradesh | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Bihar | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Delhi | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Goa | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Gujarat | Present, Localized | Introduced | 2004 | Invasive | |||
-Haryana | Present, Localized | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Jharkhand | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Karnataka | Present, Localized | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Kerala | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Madhya Pradesh | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Maharashtra | Present, Localized | Introduced | 2009 | Invasive | |||
-Punjab | Present, Widespread | 2009 | Introduced | Invasive | Dhawan et al. (1980) suggested the species had been attacking cotton in India since the 1980s | ||
-Rajasthan | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Sikkim | Present | ||||||
-Tamil Nadu | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Uttar Pradesh | Present | Introduced | |||||
-West Bengal | Present | Introduced | |||||
Indonesia | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Irian Jaya | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Java | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Lesser Sunda Islands | Present | Introduced | |||||
Iran | Present | ||||||
Iraq | Present | Introduced | Al-Ghadir and Al-Karrada Al-Sharqiya | ||||
Israel | Present, Widespread | ||||||
Japan | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Kyushu | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Ryukyu Islands | Present | ||||||
Laos | Present | ||||||
Malaysia | Present | Introduced | |||||
Pakistan | Present, Localized | 2009 | Introduced | 2005 | Invasive | Significant pest of cotton, first reported in 2005 | |
Saudi Arabia | Present | ||||||
Sri Lanka | Present, Localized | 2009 | Introduced | 2008 | Invasive | ||
Taiwan | Present, Localized | 2008 | Introduced | Invasive | |||
Thailand | Present, Localized | 2009 | Introduced | Invasive | |||
Turkey | Present | Introduced | |||||
United Arab Emirates | Present | Introduced | |||||
Vietnam | Present, Localized | Introduced | 2007 | Invasive | |||
Europe |
|||||||
Greece | Present, Localized | ||||||
-Crete | Present, Localized | ||||||
Italy | Present, Localized | ||||||
-Sicily | Present | ||||||
Netherlands | Absent, Intercepted only | ||||||
Spain | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Canary Islands | Present | Introduced | |||||
United Kingdom | Absent, Intercepted only | ||||||
North America |
|||||||
Barbados | Present | ||||||
Belize | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Canada | Present, Few occurrences | ||||||
-Alberta | Present, Few occurrences | ||||||
Cayman Islands | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Cuba | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Dominican Republic | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Guadeloupe | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Guatemala | Present | Introduced | |||||
Haiti | Present | Introduced | |||||
Jamaica | Present | Introduced | |||||
Martinique | Present | Introduced | |||||
Mexico | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Nicaragua | Present | Introduced | |||||
Panama | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Saint Barthélemy | Present | Introduced | |||||
Saint Martin | Present | Introduced | |||||
United States | Present | ||||||
-Arizona | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-California | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Colorado | Present | Native | |||||
-District of Columbia | Present | ||||||
-Florida | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Hawaii | Present | Introduced | 1996 | ||||
-Idaho | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Illinois | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Maryland | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Michigan | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Mississippi | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Missouri | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Nevada | Present | ||||||
-New Jersey | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-New Mexico | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-New York | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Ohio | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Oregon | Present | ||||||
-Texas | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Utah | Present | ||||||
-Virginia | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Washington | Present | Introduced | |||||
Oceania |
|||||||
Australia | Present, Localized | Introduced | 2009 | ||||
-Queensland | Present, Localized | Introduced | 2009 | Emerald, central Queensland and Ayr and Bowen, northern Queensland | |||
New Caledonia | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
South America |
|||||||
Argentina | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Brazil | Present | 2009 | Introduced | 2005 | |||
-Acre | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Bahia | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Ceara | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Espirito Santo | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Paraiba | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Pernambuco | Present | Introduced | |||||
Chile | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Colombia | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Ecuador | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Galapagos Islands | Present | Introduced |
History of Introduction and Spread
Top of pagePhenacoccus solenopsis was discovered in 1898 by Tinsley (1898a) in New Mexico, USA. Later it was reported to have spread to Arizona, California, Colorado, Mississippi, Washington D.C. and Texas, USA (McKenzie, 1967). It was reported in Texas on two non-cultivated hosts by 1975 (McDaniel, 1975). Fuchs et al. (1991) discovered from their survey that the species had spread throughout the several cotton-growing areas of Texas by 1988 and also recorded the mealybug from 29 additional plant hosts. P. solenopsis was recorded from infestations in 18 US states. It was first recorded from Mexico, Ecuador and the Caribbean islands in 1992.
In 2005, P. solenopsis was found seriously infesting cotton plants in the Punjab and Sindh regions of Pakistan (Arif et al., 2007). By 2006, it had spread to a large number of cotton-growing districts in Pakistan, where it not only had a dramatic impact on the plant, but also reduced the value of the cotton produced. In India, Deshpande (2009) inferred that the invasion by P. solenopsis resulted from growers buying infested Bt-cotton bolls from the USA. Once established, populations of the pest increased due to the waxy tests that protect it from natural enemies and pesticides, its high reproductive rate, its small size that contributes to its ability to hide in cracks and crevices and its ability to survive on multiple host plants. The pest also has the ability to spread rapidly to uninfested areas by natural carriers such as the wind, rain and water-ways, on farm equipment, and by clinging to clothing and animals.
P. solenopsis was first recorded in West Africa (Ghana, possibly brought in from USA) in 2007, and was found infesting ornamentals in Nigeria in 2008 (Akintola and Ande, 2009); Hodgson et al. (2008) inferred that the infestation in Nigeria might have originated from South America.
P. solenopsis reached China in 2008 and is still spreading in southern Asia; and it reached Australia in early 2010 (Muniappan et al., 2011). International trade plays a major role in the spread of this pest to new regions of the world. P. solenopsis continues to extend its range through trade in infested live plant materials, and climate warming is likely to extend its potential range further in both hemispheres (Wang et al., 2010).
Introductions
Top of pageIntroduced to | Introduced from | Year | Reason | Introduced by | Established in wild through | References | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural reproduction | Continuous restocking | |||||||
Argentina | 2003 | Yes | No | Granara de Willink and Szumik (2007); Granara de Willink (2003) | ||||
Brazil | 2002 | Yes | No | Muniappan (2009); Prishanthini and Vinobaba (2009) | ||||
Chile | 2002 | Yes | No | Prishanthini and Vinobaba (2009) | ||||
China | 2008 | Yes | No | Muniappan (2009) | ||||
Colombia | 2008 | Yes | No | Granara de Willink and Szumik (2007); Kondo et al. (2008) | ||||
Cuba | 1992 | Yes | No | Ben-Dov (1994); Granara de Willink and Szumik (2007); Kondo et al. (2008); Williams and Granara de Willink (1992) | ||||
Ecuador | 1992 | Yes | No | Prishanthini and Vinobaba (2009) | ||||
Galapagos Islands | 2001 | Yes | No | Causton et al. (2006) | ||||
Ghana | USA | 2008 | Yes | No | Muniappan (2009) | |||
India | 2006 | Yes | No | Prishanthini and Vinobaba (2009) | ||||
Mexico | 1992 | Yes | No | Granara de Willink and Szumik (2007); Hodges et al. (2008); Kondo et al. (2008); Williams and Granara de Willink (1992) | ||||
New Caledonia | 2009 | Yes | No | Abbas et al. (2009) | ||||
Nigeria | South America | 2008 | Yes | No | Hodgson et al. (2008); Akintola and Ande (2009); Muniappan (2009) | |||
Pakistan | 2005 | Yes | No | Arif et al. (2007) | ||||
Sri Lanka | 2008 | Yes | No | Prishanthini and Vinobaba (2009) | ||||
Thailand | 2007 | Yes | No | Abbas et al. (2009); Muniappan (2009) | ||||
Australia | 2010 | Yes | No | Muniappan et al. (2011) | ||||
Bangladesh | 2017 | Yes | No | Ismail et al. (2017) | ||||
Barbados | 2000 | Yes | No | EPPO (2020) | ||||
Canary Islands | 2015 | Yes | No | Gavrilov-Zimin and Danzig (2015) | ||||
Canary Islands | 2015 | Yes | No | Gavrilov-Zimin and Danzig (2015) | ||||
Swaziland | 2018 | Yes | No | Assefa and Diamini (2018) | ||||
Ethiopia | 2018 | Yes | No | Assefa and Diamini (2018) | ||||
Haiti | 2008 | Yes | No | Perez-Gelabert (2008) | ||||
Java | 2009 | Yes | No | Muniappan et al. (2009) | ||||
Malaysia | 2016 | Yes | No | Sartiami et al. (2016) | ||||
Sierra Leone | 2015 | Yes | No | Fand and Suroshe (2015) | ||||
Leeward Islands | 2006 | Yes | No | Matile-Ferrero and Étienne (2006) | St Barthelemy and St Martin |
Risk of Introduction
Top of pageBased on the range of climates and large number of host species on which P. solenopsis can survive, and the damage inflicted on the host plants, this species poses a serious threat of expanding its range (Wang et al., 2010). The hydrophobic waxy test, cryptic habits, small size, ability to feed on all parts of the plant, multiple overlapping generations and high reproductive rates, allow P. solenopsis the opportunity to disperse over extended areas. Its cryptic colouration and small size mean that it can be overlooked on infested vegetables, fruits and other crops, facilitating transport to other regions.
As an introduced species, P. solenopsis has the capability to cause direct economic and ecological damage to native fauna and flora, with heavy infestations reducing plant vigour and causing plant death. Once the species has established within a region, it has the capability of rapid multiplication resulting in significant damage to the crop. Sharma (2007) documented a seasonal outbreak of P. solenopsis on okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) in 2007, which developed into a heavy infestation by the end of the growing season and resulted in a 90% loss of seeds. Wang et al. (2009) recorded 17 provinces and 11 regions in China where this invasive species could spread and cause significant economic and environmental damage. Based on an international pest risk analysis for P. solenopsis, Wang et al. (2009) rated this mealybug as a high-risk invasive threat to China, with risk score of 0.856.
Habitat
Top of pageThis species has been documented infesting 204 plant species representing 64 families with a distribution in Africa, Asia, North America and South America and Oceanic regions including the Caribbean nations (García Morales et al., 2016). Specimens from different geographical regions exhibit similar morphological characteristics (Hodgson et al., 2008). Hodgson et al. (2008) noted a significant difference in the ecology of P. solenopsis from the hot, dry climate of southwestern USA; here the mealybug occurs primarily on the roots and underside of the foliage and stems, compared to the more humid regions of India and Pakistan, where it is found almost entirely on the upper portions of the foliage, well above the soil line. Dhawan et al. (2009a) inferred that meteorological parameters influenced the presence and population size of the mealybug, with high humidity and rainfall having a negative effect.
Habitat List
Top of pageCategory | Sub-Category | Habitat | Presence | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|
Terrestrial | Managed | Cultivated / agricultural land | Principal habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Managed | Managed forests, plantations and orchards | Secondary/tolerated habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Managed | Urban / peri-urban areas | Principal habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Natural / Semi-natural | Arid regions | Secondary/tolerated habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Hosts/Species Affected
Top of pageThe solenopsis mealybug has been recorded on 204 host plant species that include field crops, ornamentals, trees, vegetables and weeds (García Morales et al., 2016). In Pakistan, P. solenopsis obtained the status of a serious pest on a wide host range. In a field survey, Arif et al. (2009) identified the mealybug from 154 plant species, the majority of which belong to the families Malvaceae, Solanaceae, Asteraceae, Euphorbiaceae, Amaranthaceae and Cucurbitaceae. Significant economic damage occurs on cotton (Gossypium spp.), brinjal (Solanum melongena), okra (Abelmoschus esculentus), tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), sesame (Sesamum indicum), sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and China rose (Hibiscus rosa-sinensis; Sharma, 2007; Arif et al., 2009; Jagadish et al., 2009b).
Several cultivated plants, as well as weeds, have been used as trap crops to suppress the population numbers in an area. In surveys of the insect fauna in the southwestern USA, this pseudococcid was recorded on several plant hosts ranging from silver nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium; Goeden, 1971) to jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis; Pinto and Frommer, 1980).
Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
Top of pageSymptoms
Top of pageThe extraction of phloem sap by the mealybugs results in the leaves of the plant turning yellow and becoming crinkled or malformed, which leads to loss of plant vigour, foliage and fruit drop, and potential death of the plant if not treated. Phloem feeding affects the growing regions of the plant, often resulting in bunched and stunted growth (Dhawan et al., 2009b; Jagadish et al., 2009a), with plants producing smaller fruit or flowers, which ultimately leads to a reduction in seed or fruit yields.
List of Symptoms/Signs
Top of pageSign | Life Stages | Type |
---|---|---|
Fruit / abnormal patterns | ||
Fruit / abnormal shape | ||
Fruit / discoloration | ||
Fruit / honeydew or sooty mould | ||
Fruit / internal feeding | ||
Fruit / premature drop | ||
Growing point / dieback | ||
Growing point / discoloration | ||
Growing point / distortion | ||
Growing point / honeydew or sooty mould | ||
Growing point / internal feeding; boring | ||
Inflorescence / dieback | ||
Inflorescence / discoloration (non-graminaceous plants) | ||
Inflorescence / distortion (non-graminaceous plants) | ||
Inflorescence / dwarfing; stunting | ||
Inflorescence / honeydew or sooty mould | ||
Inflorescence / internal feeding | ||
Inflorescence / wilt | ||
Leaves / abnormal colours | ||
Leaves / abnormal leaf fall | ||
Leaves / honeydew or sooty mould | ||
Leaves / leaves rolled or folded | ||
Leaves / necrotic areas | ||
Leaves / wilting | ||
Leaves / yellowed or dead | ||
Roots / internal feeding | ||
Roots / reduced root system | ||
Stems / distortion | ||
Stems / honeydew or sooty mould | ||
Stems / internal feeding | ||
Stems / witches broom | ||
Whole plant / discoloration | ||
Whole plant / distortion; rosetting | ||
Whole plant / dwarfing | ||
Whole plant / early senescence | ||
Whole plant / internal feeding | ||
Whole plant / plant dead; dieback | ||
Whole plant / wilt |
Biology and Ecology
Top of pageReproductive Biology
P. solenopsis reproduces sexually and has multiple generations annually, the number depending on temperature and host quality. Each adult female lays 150 to 600 eggs, protected within a waxy ovisac (Lu et al., 2008). Females undergo three immature stages prior to reaching adulthood, whereas males undergo first-instar nymph, second-instar nymph, prepupal and pupal stages prior to adulthood. The period of development from crawler to adult is approximately 25-30 days, depending upon temperature and host quality (García Morales et al., 2016).
Nutrition
The mealybugs feed by extracting sap from phloem cells in leaves or stems. The sap contains water, soluble sugars, phenols, proteins and other potential nutrients. Mealybug-infested leaves produce high quantities of sugars and proteins compared to the amounts produced in uninfested leaves (Jagadish et al., 2009a). Conversely, Jagadish et al. (2009a) reported a decline in the phenol content in infested sunflower plants.
Environmental Requirements
Maximum temperature and sunshine hours have a positive influence on P. solenopsis, whereas high relative humidity and rainfall have a negative influence (Suresh and Kavitha, 2008b). The mealybugs are capable of surviving temperatures ranging from 0-45°C (Sharma, 2007). The location of the feeding site on the plant appears to be influenced by humidity, as Hodgson et al. (2008) concluded that P. solenopsis occurred more commonly on the roots, stems and foliage close to the soil line in very dry climates compared to settling on the upper foliage in more humid areas (Gerson, 2020).
Climate
Top of pageClimate | Status | Description | Remark |
---|---|---|---|
Af - Tropical rainforest climate | Tolerated | > 60mm precipitation per month | |
Am - Tropical monsoon climate | Tolerated | Tropical monsoon climate ( < 60mm precipitation driest month but > (100 - [total annual precipitation(mm}/25])) | |
As - Tropical savanna climate with dry summer | Preferred | < 60mm precipitation driest month (in summer) and < (100 - [total annual precipitation{mm}/25]) | |
Aw - Tropical wet and dry savanna climate | Preferred | < 60mm precipitation driest month (in winter) and < (100 - [total annual precipitation{mm}/25]) | |
B - Dry (arid and semi-arid) | Preferred | < 860mm precipitation annually | |
BW - Desert climate | Tolerated | < 430mm annual precipitation | |
C - Temperate/Mesothermal climate | Preferred | Average temp. of coldest month > 0°C and < 18°C, mean warmest month > 10°C | |
Cf - Warm temperate climate, wet all year | Preferred | Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all year | |
Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer | Preferred | Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers | |
Cw - Warm temperate climate with dry winter | Preferred | Warm temperate climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry winters) | |
D - Continental/Microthermal climate | Tolerated | Continental/Microthermal climate (Average temp. of coldest month < 0°C, mean warmest month > 10°C) | |
Df - Continental climate, wet all year | Tolerated | Continental climate, wet all year (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, wet all year) | |
Ds - Continental climate with dry summer | Tolerated | Continental climate with dry summer (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry summers) | |
Dw - Continental climate with dry winter | Tolerated | Continental climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry winters) |
Latitude/Altitude Ranges
Top of pageLatitude North (°N) | Latitude South (°S) | Altitude Lower (m) | Altitude Upper (m) |
---|---|---|---|
42 | 31 |
Natural enemies
Top of pageNatural enemy | Type | Life stages | Specificity | References | Biological control in | Biological control on |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Acerophagus gutierreziae | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Aenasius | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Aenasius advena | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Aenasius arizonensis | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Aenasius bambawalei | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Aenasius phenacocci | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Alamella flava | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Allotropa phenacocca | Parasite | Chena et al. (2011) | ||||
Anagyrus chrysos | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Anagyrus dactylopii | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Anagyrus kamali | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Anagyrus mirzai | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Anagyrus osmoi | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Anagyrus pseudococci | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Anthocoris muraleedharani | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Tong et al. (2019) | ||
Aprostocetus minutus | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Blaptostethus pallescens | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Tong et al. (2019) | ||
Blepyrus insularis | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Brumoides suturalis | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Yonas and Umar (2019) | Pakistan | Cotton |
Chalcaspis phenacocci | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Chartocerus dactylopii | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Chartocerus subaeneus | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Cheilomenes sexmaculata | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Cheiloneurus | Hyperparasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Chilocorus nigrita | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Tong et al. (2019) | ||
Chrysoperla carnea | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Yonas and Umar (2019) | Pakistan | Cotton |
Chrysoperla zastrowi | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Tong et al. (2019) | ||
Cryptolaemus montrouzieri | Predator | Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Yonas and Umar (2019) | Pakistan | Cotton |
Dicrodiplosis manihoti | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Tong et al. (2019) | ||
Gyranusoidea indica | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Harmonia dimidiata | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Tong et al. (2019) | ||
Harmonia octomaculata | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Hyperaspis maindroni | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Hypoaspis | Predator | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Leptomastix dactylopii | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Marietta | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Nephus regularis | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Pachyneuron | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Paranathrix tachikawai | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Prochiloneurus aegyptiacus | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Prochiloneurus dactylopii | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Noyes (2020) | ||
Prochiloneurus nagasakiensis | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | Tong et al. (2019) | ||
Prochiloneurus stenopterus | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | to species | Noyes (2020) | ||
Prochiloneurus uyguni | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | to species | Noyes (2020) | ||
Promuscidea unfasciativentris | Hyperparasite | Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Rodolia fumida | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Scymnus coccivora | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | not specific | |||
Scymus | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | not specific |
Notes on Natural Enemies
Top of pageThe solenopsis mealybug possesses a number of defence capabilities to protect itself from natural enemies. The waxy secretions that cover the body often protects it from attack by parasitoids and predators. This waxy covering may be the reason for the rare occurrence by pathogens and nematodes infesting the mealybug (Franco et al., 2009). Also, ants often attend the mealybugs for the honeydew they excrete and in return, often defend the mealybugs from natural enemies. The solenopsis mealybug was initially discovered in a nest of Solenopsis geminata (Tinsley, 1898a). More recently, P. solenopsis has been recorded in the nests of the southern fire ant (Taber, 2000) and associated with several other species of ants including Myrmicaria brunnea, Oecopylla smaragdina, Solenopsis invicta, and Tapinoma melanocephalum (Helms and Vinson, 2002; Jagadish et al., 2008, 2009b; Zhou et al., 2012).
Several parasitoids and predators have been documented attacking P. solenopsis. Three parasitic wasps (Chalcaspis arizonensis, Cheiloneurus sp., and Aprostocetus minutus) were discovered attacking the mealybug on cotton in Texas, USA (Fuchs et al., 1991). In India, an unidentified species of the solitary endoparasitoid genus Aenasius was reported to attack P. solenopsis (Sharma, 2007; Tanwar et al., 2008). Hayat (2009) described a new species of parasitoid from India, Aenasius bambawalei, associated with P. solenopsis, which has been documented as a very effective biological control agent. Parasitized mealybugs cease feeding and their exoskeletons turn into reddish-brown mummies (Pala Ram et al., 2009). This parasitoid has been reported to parasitize up to 72% of P. solenopsis on cotton in some districts in India (Muniappan, 2009; Pala Ram et al., 2009). Within one growing season, on okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) parasitism of P. solenopsis by A. bambawalei reached 89% parasitism at harvest time (Sharma, 2007). In addition, Paranathrix tachikawai was recorded parasitizing 30-39% of the mealybugs on cotton in India (Bambawale, 2008). However, a hyperparasitoid, Promuscidea unfasciativentris, attacks A. bambawalei, which potentially may reduce the efficiency of this parasitoid as a biological control agent.
Several predator species are associated with P. solenopsis. Most predators require high populations of prey to complete their development. Cryptolaemus montrouzieri has been used to control several mealybug pest species. In India, two coccinellids (Brumoides suturalis and Hyperaspis maindroni) were identified to be associated with P. solenopsis (Patel et al., 2009). Most predators feed on the eggs or crawlers within the mealybug’s ovisac and reduce the number of mealybugs available to extract sap and weaken the plant. Other predators like the larvae of the lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea, were found to consume 30 mealybug eggs daily in developmental laboratory tests (Rabinder Kaur et al., 2008).
Means of Movement and Dispersal
Top of pageFirst-instar nymphs are the primary dispersal stage of P. solenopsis but they are capable of crawling only about one metre. Local and regional movement of P. solenopsis is mainly passive, by wind, irrigation water and by attachment to passing insects, birds, people and agricultural machinery. The species may be dispersed over long distances by trade in infested plants in air or sea cargo.
The solenopsis mealybug is native to the southwestern USA; material from Central and South America is similar to specimens collected from West Africa (Hodgson et al., 2008), whereas specimens from Thailand, Taiwan and New Caledonia appear morphologically to be more similar to specimens from India and Pakistan. Hodgson et al. (2008) inferred that material found in Asia may have been accidentally introduced through international commerce.
Natural Dispersal (Non-Biotic)
First-instar nymphs (crawlers) are the main active dispersal stage of P. solenopsis, walking short distances to locate suitable feeding sites on the leaves, stems, leaf petioles, and bracts. Generally the crawlers are not efficient at dispersing, so infestations develop into dense colonies that damage the host plant (Charleston and Murray, 2010). Wax strands covering the body may facilitate passive transport by wind or water; crawlers are commonly carried by wind across distances between a few metres and several kilometres (Arif et al., 2012).
Vector Transmission (Biotic)
Crawlers are also dispersed passively by passing animals (including humans) and agricultural machinery (Arif et al., 2012). The attendant ant Oecophylla smaragdina has been observed to move some of the mealybugs to other locations on the plant to feed (Jagadish et al., 2009b). The waxy test covering the body can adhere to passing animals or peoples’ clothes or agricultural machinery, allowing specimens to be transported long distances from the original infestation before becoming dislodged in new, previously uninfested areas. Infested host-plant material transported by people from one area to another is an important means of distribution for the mealybug over long distances.
Accidental Introduction
Commercial trade involving infested plants may often be the cause for spread of P. solenopsis over long distances. Movement of infested plants and contaminated agricultural equipment from an infested area to a non-infested area may also be involved in the accidental spread of the mealybug (Arif et al., 2012).
Pathway Causes
Top of pageCause | Notes | Long Distance | Local | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Crop production | Yes | Yes | Arif et al. (2012) | |
Garden waste disposal | Yes | |||
Horticulture | Yes | Arif et al. (2012) | ||
Ornamental purposes | Yes | Arif et al. (2012) |
Pathway Vectors
Top of pageVector | Notes | Long Distance | Local | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Aircraft | Yes | Arif et al. (2012) | ||
Bulk freight or cargo | Yes | Arif et al. (2012) | ||
Clothing, footwear and possessions | Yes | Arif et al. (2012) | ||
Debris and waste associated with human activities | Yes | |||
Hides, trophies and feathers | Yes | |||
Mulch, straw, baskets and sod | Yes |
Plant Trade
Top of pagePlant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport | Pest stages | Borne internally | Borne externally | Visibility of pest or symptoms |
---|---|---|---|---|
Flowers/Inflorescences/Cones/Calyx | arthropods/adults; arthropods/nymphs | Yes | Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope | |
Fruits (inc. pods) | arthropods/adults; arthropods/nymphs | Yes | Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope | |
Leaves | arthropods/adults; arthropods/nymphs | Yes | Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope | |
Roots | arthropods/adults; arthropods/nymphs | Yes | Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope | |
Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches | arthropods/adults; arthropods/nymphs | Yes | Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope |
Economic Impact
Top of pageP. solenopsis is an important plant pest worldwide (Williams and Granara de Willink, 1992; Hodgson et al., 2008); its feeding can cause leaves to turn yellow and results in premature defoliation, reduced plant growth or plant death. The mealybug can inflict significant damage to field crops (i.e. cotton and tobacco). This mealybug caused serious damage to cotton and other crops in Pakistan (Saeed et al., 2007; Dhawan et al., 2009a, b), India (Jhala et al., 2008; Bhosle et al., 2009), Israel (Spodek et al., 2018), China (Ahmed et al., 2015) and Australia (Charleston and Murray, 2010). It is a pest of commercial crops including a variety of vegetables, grapes (Vitis vinifera), jute (Corchorus spp.), mesta (Hibiscus cannabinus) and tobacco.
Pakistan is the fourth largest cotton producing country and its economy is heavily dependent on the production of cotton for foreign income; cotton production accounts for 8.2% of the value added in agriculture and 2% of the GDP. The damage to cotton caused by P. solenopsis can significantly impact the economy, with an estimated 14% loss and a 44% reduction in seed-cotton yields in Pakistan in 2005 (Dhawan et al., 2009b). In Punjab, India there were significant losses in 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 (Anon., 2005; Hodgson et al., 2008; Dhawan et al., 2009a). The intense mealybug attack on Bt cotton caused significant economic losses to growers in the Punjab region (Dutt, 2007). In 2007, the number of hectares committed to growing cotton increased over the previous year, but cotton production declined significantly (Dutt, 2007). In some regions of India, field crop losses in cotton have ranged from 30-80% (Nalwar et al., 2009). However, the grower is required to implement chemical applications to save the crop, resulting in increased production costs as well as potential chemical contamination of soil and water. Similar problems are being caused by P. solenopsis in other countries where it has become established.
Environmental Impact
Top of pageDue to its great reproductive capacity P. solenopsis has the potential to damage or kill native plant species, which could facilitate their displacement by other more aggressive species, so altering the ecological balance of the plant community. Wang et al. (2009) projected that P. solenopsis could infest regions within 17 provinces of China and posed a pest risk analysis score of 0.856 to the country.
Social Impact
Top of pageThe impact of the mealybug on Bt cotton often requires numerous expensive pesticide applications to protect the crop. Because of reduced cotton yield and honeydew-fouled lint bringing lower prices, farmers in some areas consider cultivating other crops instead. The additional pest control requirements for growing Bt cotton subject to P. solenopsis infestation often result in a reduced profit margin that impacts the standard of living of producers and homeowners. P. solenopsis attacks and damages numerous ornamental plants, so it has can affect the aesthetic appearance of infested areas, impacting tourism in the region.
Risk and Impact Factors
Top of page- Invasive in its native range
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Highly adaptable to different environments
- Is a habitat generalist
- Tolerant of shade
- Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
- Benefits from human association (i.e. it is a human commensal)
- Fast growing
- Has high reproductive potential
- Gregarious
- Host damage
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Negatively impacts livelihoods
- Damages animal/plant products
- Interaction with other invasive species
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
- Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
- Difficult to identify/detect in the field
- Difficult/costly to control
Diagnosis
Top of pageIn life, body of female 2-5 mm long, oval, dusted with powdery white wax but often with 2 submedian lines of dark grey bare patches, with 3 conspicuous pairs of patches on anterior abdominal segments and often 1 or 2 less obvious pairs on thorax. Marginal wax filaments very short but longest at posterior end; a short, fluffy white ovisac secreted at maturity. Venter of abdmen with a dark circulus visible on midline. Adult male Phenacoccus mealybugs have 1 pair of wings and 2 pairs of long white wax tail filaments. Microscopic examination of the adult female is required to verify the species identity, or molecular analysis.
On a microscope slide, body of adult female oval, with 18 pairs of cerarii on margins, each cerarius containing 2 lanceolate setae. Quinquelocular pores absent, and antennae usually 9 segmented. Multilocular pores absent from dorsum, present ventrally at least around vulva and on posterior abdominal segments, medial area of abdominal segment VII with pores scattered across entire depth of segment from anterior edge to posterior edge. Translucent pores present on hind tibia; claw with a denticle. Dorsal setae short and lanceolate. Circulus usually oval and small, often slightly sclerotized, present between abdominal segments III and IV. Specimens living in hot conditions may have a few translucent pores near apex of hind femur, and small clusters of ventral multilocular disc pores on submargins of some or most abdominal segments.
Molecular characterisation of P. solenopsis was carried out by Tian et al. (2013) and its gene sequences are available on GenBank.
Detection and Inspection
Top of pageInitiate field surveys to detect potential infestations early in the growing season, to provide maximum opportunities for spot treatments (either by hand picking or pesticidal sprays) to prevent spread and limit damage to commercial crops. Closely examine stems, leaves and flowers for small white oval insects without wings, each often with 2 broken grey submedian longitudinal stripes. In addition, check for infestation of the base of the plant several millimetres below the soil surface. The presence of sticky honeydew deposits and traces of sooty mould on the leaves may also indicate presence of an infestation. Sticky traps set out in the fields and around their borders can be used to detect the presence of the winged male mealybugs.
Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
Top of pageP. solenopsis is closely related to P. solani (of which P. defectus is a junior synonym (Chatzidimitriou et al., 2016)). However, adult female P. solenopsis have (contrasting condition in P. solani): antenna usually 9 segmented (usually 8 segmented); ventral multilocular disc pores present as far forward as abdominal segment VI (as far forward as abdominal segment IV); multilocular disc pores on middle of segment VII present across entire depth of segment (present in distinct rows along anterior and/or posterior edges of segment VII, the pores sometimes very few); submargins of abdominal segments sometimes with small groups of multilocular pores (lacking submarginal multilocular pores); and distal end of hind femur sometimes with a few translucent pores (hind femur never with translucent pores; Zhao et al., 2014).
Prevention and Control
Top of pageDue to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.
Prevention
SPS measures
Several countries require inspection of plant material imported from countries where P. solenopsis is known to occur. China has initiated a notice of inspection and quarantine for P. solenopsis (Ministry of Agriculture, 2009).
Early warning systems
Use of sticky traps placed throughout the field is an effective means to monitor for the presence and population density of P. solenopsis, by catching the winged males.
Control
Cultural control and sanitary measures
It is important to cut infested stems or branches from plants and destroy the infested plant material by burning or deep burial; infested prunings must not be left lying in the field, as the mealybugs will walk onto nearby plants. After harvest, crop residue and weeds left in infested fields should be gathered up and buried or burned, as mealybugs on plant material left in the field can survive to infest the next crop. Field borders should be inspected for alternative host plants for the mealybug; these should be removed to prevent the mealybugs from overwintering and infesting the next crop. Trap plants like Hibiscus rosa-sinensis may be planted, to initially attract the mealybugs; these serve to alert farmers to the presence of P. solenopsis in the field, and can then be treated to protect the primary crop.
Physical/mechanical control
Small populations of P. solenopsis can be controlled by regular inspection of plants, removing loose bark where mealybugs might be difficult to observe and hand-picking or crushing specimens from newly-infested plants.
Movement control
When working in fields known to be infested with P. solenopsis, it is necessary to sanitize farm equipment and check clothing items before movement to uninfested fields, to prevent the transfer of the pest to new locations. Infested prunings should be destroyed on site, not transported elsewhere for disposal, as crawlers falling off transported material will infest plants along the route.
Biological control
The use of biological control agents provides a cost-effective, non-toxic, self-perpetuating means of suppressing invasive pest populations of exotic mealybugs. Several parasitoids and predators have been identified that attack P. solenopsis and can control pest populations at low densities. Established parasitoids have been recorded parasitizing over 70% of the cotton mealybug population (Pala Ram et al., 2009). Other tactics suggested to suppress populations of P. solenopsis include allowing the parasitoids to build up their numbers prior to applying chemical insecticides, and to use pesticides that minimise parasitoid fatalities; to attach plant parts bearing parasitoid-infested mealybugs (mummies) onto the host plant to be protected; mass-rearing and releasing parasitoids into mealybug-infested areas; and using a combination of several natural enemies to control the exotic pest (Pala Ram et al., 2009). Predators are used to control P. solenopsis on cotton in several countries. The commercially available predatory ladybeetle, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (Coleoptera: Coccinellidaae), has been imported into India and released in cotton-infested fields to help to control P. solenopsis.
Several species of ants are often associated with honeydew-producing mealybugs, and protect them from attack by their natural enemies. To increase the chances of success in using biological control agents against P. solenopsis, attendant ants need to be eradicated if at all possible (Helms and Vinson, 2002; Tanwar et al., 2007).
Chemical control
It is often effective to spot treat small populations of the mealybug, detected during early monitoring, with soap solution. Before Bt cotton was introduced to Pakistan and India, P. solenopsis was considered to be a secondary pest of cotton, maintained at low population levels by chemical applications to control the primary pest, Helicoverpa armigera. With the cultivation of transgenic cotton with a reduced need for chemical applications, the mealybug emerged as a major pest requiring chemical applications to manage it. The use of insecticides is most effective against the mealybug when applications are timed to coincide with emergence of the vulnerable crawler stage. The use of ant baits to eliminate mealybug-attendant ants from the field is also beneficial. Dhawan et al. (2008; 2009a) evaluated the effectiveness of a variety of insecticides against P. solenopsis.
IPM
In India, a management strategem to control P.solenopsis that incorporates cultural, mechanical, biological and chemical control factors has been developed (Tanwar et al., 2007). This involves a pre-planting survey for P. solenopsis; targeting and spot treating small populations chemically; removal of alternate host plants and ant colonies; using recommended insecticides for optimal effectiveness on the plants and around their root systems; providing an attractive habitat for native and exotic natural enemies; and using a variety of sanitation methods to prevent spread of the pest to new fields.
Monitoring and surveillance
The placing of sticky traps in the fields and around their borders, to catch P. solenopsis males, is useful in early detection of the mealybug in the area. Observations of plant stems, leaves and flowers aid in detecting the white, waxy masses produced by P. solenopsis.
Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs
Top of pageThe biology, development and control of P. solenopsis need to be researched further to determine the biotic and abiotic factors that may impact its development and survival. Because the mealybug has a varied host range, studies on the preferred hosts could aid in developing and implementing effective control methods. Comprehensive studies need to be conducted on the parasitoids and predators associated with P. solenopsis, including their life histories, and a determination of the combinations of natural enemies that would be most effective in suppressing the pest populations in areas with different climatic conditions and altitudes. It is important that information is obtained and distributed regarding those risk factors that may be necessary to address in order to implement a successful control programme. Evaluation of the impact of crop damage or loss in reference to the use of chemical applications, compared to the time needed to develop established natural enemy populations to suppress P. solenopsis, need further study.
References
Top of pageCharleston K, Murray D, 2010. Exotic mealybug species – a major new pest in cotton. Queensland, Australia: Queensland Government. The Beat Sheet.http://thebeatsheet.com.au/mealybugs/exotic-mealybug-species-a-major-new-pest-in-cotton/
Cockerell TDA, 1902. Two new mealy-bugs from New Mexico. The Canadian Entomologist, 34:315-316
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
EPPO, 2020. EPPO Global database. In: EPPO Global database Paris, France: EPPO.https://gd.eppo.int/
Fernald ME, 1903. A Catalogue of the Coccidae of the World. Massachusettus Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, 88
Gavrilov-Zimin, IA, Danzig, EM, 2015. Some additions to the mealybug fauna (Homoptera: Coccinea: Pseudococcidae) of the Canary Islands. Zoosystematica Rossica, 24(1), 94-98.
Gerson U, 2020. Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley. In: Plant pests of the Middle East, Jerusalem, Israel: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.http://www.agri.huji.ac.il/mepests/pest/Phenacoccus_solenopsis/
Goeden, R. D., 1971. Insect ecology of silverleaf nightshade. Weed Science, 19(1), 45-51.
IPPC, 2018. (Primer reporte oficial de Phenacoccus solenopsis). IPPC Official Pest Report, No. NIC-18/1. Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
Ismail, M, Ejaz, M, Abbas, N, Shad, SA, Shahzad Afzal, MB, 2017. Resistance risk assessment to chlorpyrifos and cross-resistance to other insecticides in a field strain of Phenacocus solenopsis Tinsley. Crop Protection, 94, 38-43.
Ministry of Agriculture, 2010. Announcement 1380. Gazette of the Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China
Muniappan R, Shepard BM, Watson GW, Carner GR, Rauf A, Sartiami D, Hidayat P, Afun JVK, Goergen G, Ziaur Rahman AKM, 2011. Journal of Agricultural and Urban Entomology, 26(4) . 167-174.
Noyes JS, 2020. Universal Chalcicoidea Database. World Wide Web electronic publication. London, UK: Natural History Museum.http://www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids
Sartiami D, Watson GW, Mohamad Roff MN, Idris AB, 2016. Mealybugs (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Pseudococcidae) attacking Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. in Malaysia, with two new country records. In: AIP Conference Proceedings : AIP Publishing.
Taber SW, 2000. Fire Ants. College Station, Texas, USA: Texas A&M University Press, 308 pp
Tinsley JD, 1898. An ants'-nest coccid from New Mexico. The Canadian Entomologist, 30:47-48
Yonas MW, Umar K, 2019. Biological control of cotton mealy bug (Phenacoccus solenopsis) in Pakistan. Pakistan: Agrihunt.https://agrihunt.com/articles/pesticide-industry/biological-control-of-cotton-mealy-bug-phenacoccus-solenopsis-in-pakistan/
Distribution References
Aroua K, Kadan MB, Ercan C, Biche M, 2020. First record of Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae) in Algeria. Entomological News. 129 (63-66), 1.
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status inferred from regional distribution. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated b. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Gavrilov-Zimin IA, Danzig EM, 2015. Some additions to the mealybug fauna (Homoptera: Coccinea: Pseudococcidae) of the Canary Islands. Zoosystematica Rossica. 24 (1), 94-98.
Goeden R D, 1971. Insect ecology of silverleaf nightshade. Weed Science. 19 (1), 45-51.
Hemba M, Mulatu B, Lemma H, 2012. Cotton mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae): a newly introduced pest threatening cotton production in Ethiopia. Pest Management Journal of Ethiopia. 60-67.
IPPC, 2018. (Primer reporte oficial de Phenacoccus solenopsis). In: IPPC Official Pest Report, Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
Ismail M, Ejaz M, Abbas N, Shad SA, Shahzad Afzal MB, 2017. Resistance risk assessment to chlorpyrifos and cross-resistance to other insecticides in a field strain of Phenacocus solenopsis Tinsley. Crop Protection. 38-43.
Ministry of Agriculture, 2010. Announcement 1380. Gazette of the Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China.,
Porcelli F, Pellizzari G, 2019. New data on the distribution of scale insects (Hemiptera, Coccomorpha). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France. 124 (2), 183-188.
Sartiami D, Watson GW, Mohamad Roff MN, Idris AB, 2016. Mealybugs (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Pseudococcidae) attacking Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. in Malaysia, with two new country records. In: AIP Conference Proceedings [The 2016 UKM FST Postgraduate Colloquium], AIP Publishing.
Tinsley J D, 1898. An ants'-nest coccid from New Mexico. Canadian Entomologist. 47-48.
Links to Websites
Top of pageWebsite | URL | Comment |
---|---|---|
Mealybugs | http://www.mrec.ifas.ufl.edu/lso/Mealybugs.htm | |
Mealybugs & Mealybug Look-Alikes of the Southeastern United States | http://www.ncipmc.org/alerts/phmb/mealybugs.pdf | |
Scalenet | http://scalenet.info |
Contributors
Top of page11/12/09 Original text by:
Paris Lambdin, Department of Entomology, Agricultural Experimental Station, University of Tennessee, PO Box 1071, Knoxville, TN 37901, USA
13/01/20 Updated by:
Gillian Watson, Consultant, UK
Distribution Maps
Top of pageSelect a dataset
Map Legends
-
CABI Summary Records
Map Filters
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/