Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide


Bemisia tabaci (MED)
(silverleaf whitefly)



Bemisia tabaci (MED) (silverleaf whitefly)


  • Last modified
  • 03 January 2018
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Pest
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Bemisia tabaci (MED)
  • Preferred Common Name
  • silverleaf whitefly
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Metazoa
  •     Phylum: Arthropoda
  •       Subphylum: Uniramia
  •         Class: Insecta
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • The exact origin of the MED species of Bemisia tabaci, and the reasons why it became such an important pest are still not fully known. MED species has been identified as a distinct member within the B. ta...

  • There are no pictures available for this datasheet

    If you can supply pictures for this datasheet please contact:

    CAB International
    OX10 8DE
  • Distribution map More information

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Generate report


Top of page


Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Bemisia tabaci (MED)

Preferred Common Name

  • silverleaf whitefly

Other Scientific Names

  • Bemisia tabaci biotype Q
  • Bemisia tabaci Q
  • Mediterranean (MED) species (Bemisia tabaci) (Gennadius, 1889)

International Common Names

  • English: poinsettia whitefly; Q biotype; tobacco whitefly

English acronym

  • MED

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

The exact origin of the MED species of Bemisia tabaci, and the reasons why it became such an important pest are still not fully known. MED species has been identified as a distinct member within the B. tabaci species complex (Tay et al., 2012). MED species is also an effective vector of many different plant viruses which, in conjunction with its high level of polyphagy, make it extremely problematic within agricultural regions where crops may be susceptible to viruses acquired from indigenous plants. Despite Bemisia in general being a tropical/sub-tropical whitefly species, MED species can easily be transported on plant species to temperate regions of the world (Cuthbertson and Vänninen, 2015). Within these cooler regions, MED species can survive within a protected environment and could feasibly spread virus diseases to new locations. It is for this reason that B. tabaci and members of its species complex, including MED species are on EPPO A2 Alert list.

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Metazoa
  •         Phylum: Arthropoda
  •             Subphylum: Uniramia
  •                 Class: Insecta
  •                     Order: Hemiptera
  •                         Suborder: Sternorrhyncha
  •                             Unknown: Aleyrodoidea
  •                                 Family: Aleyrodidae
  •                                     Genus: Bemisia
  •                                         Species: Bemisia tabaci (MED)

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page

The pest status of B. tabaci insects is complicated and through the comparison of mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase 1 (mtCO1) gene it is generally accepted that, rather than one complex species, B. tabaci is a complex of 11 genetic groups. These genetic groups are composed of at least 34 morphologically indistinguishable species, which are merely separated by a minimum of 3.5% mtCOI nucleotide divergence (Dinsdale et al., 2010; De Barro et al., 2011; Boykin and De Barro, 2014). The MED species, which was originally described in Greece as Aleyrodes tabaci in 1889 by Gennadius, was recently confirmed using molecular markers as the Mediterranean species (Tay et al., 2012). Within the B. tabaci complex, the Middle East-Asia Minor 1 (MEAM1) cryptic species, formerly referred to as 'B biotype', and Mediterranean (MED) cryptic species, formerly referred to as 'Q biotype' are the two most widely distributed, and as a result, best known of the species. These two species present the greatest threat to glasshouse crops worldwide (Bethke et al., 2009). The damaging MEAM1 is described as an aggressive coloniser and is an effective vector of many viruses, whereas the MED species characteristically shows strong resistance to novel insecticides (Jones et al., 2008; McKenzie et al., 2009).  


Top of page


Eggs are pear shaped with a pedicel spike at the base, approximately 0.2 mm long.


A flat, irregular oval shape, about 0.7 mm long, with an elongate, triangular vasiform orifice. On a smooth leaf the puparium lacks enlarged dorsal setae, but if the leaf is hairy, 2-8 long, dorsal setae are present.


Adults are approximately 1 mm long, the male slightly smaller than the female. The body and both pairs of wings are covered with a powdery, waxy secretion, white to slightly yellowish in colour.


Top of page

MED species continues to be detected around the globe (Chu Dong et al., 2006).

Certain areas within Europe are still MED species free, e.g. Finland, Sweden, Republic of Ireland and the UK (Cuthbertson and Vänninen, 2015).

Distribution Table

Top of page

The 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.

Continent/Country/RegionDistributionLast ReportedOriginFirst ReportedInvasiveReferenceNotes


ChinaPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-GuangdongPresentSun et al., 2013
-JiangsuPresent Invasive Li et al., 2015
-ShandongPresentChu et al., 2010
-TibetPresentLu et al., 2016
IsraelPresentHoroxitz et al., 2008
JapanPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-Ryukyu ArchipelagoPresentKijima et al., 2013
Korea, Republic ofPresentKim and Kim, 2014
TurkeyPresentKarut et al., 2014


South AfricaPresent2013Esterhuizen et al., 2013

North America

BermudaPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
CanadaPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-British ColumbiaPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-OntarioPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
MexicoPresent2007Martinez-Carrillo and Brown, 2007
USAPresent Invasive McKenzie et al., 2012
-AlabamaPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-ArizonaPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-ConnecticutPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-FloridaPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-GeorgiaPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-HawaiiPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-IllinoisPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-IndianaPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-KentuckyPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-LouisianaPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-MichiganPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-New HampshirePresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-New JerseyPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-New YorkPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-North CarolinaPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-OhioPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-PennsylvaniaPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-South CarolinaPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012
-TexasPresentMcKenzie et al., 2012

Central America and Caribbean

Costa RicaPresentGuevara-Coto et al., 2011
GuatemalaPresent2009Bethke et al., 2009

South America

ArgentinaPresent2011Grille et al., 2011
BrazilPresent2015Barbosa et al., 2015
UruguayPresent2011Grille et al., 2011


FinlandEradicated2014 Invasive Lemmetty and Vänninen, 2014
GreecePresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-CretePresentRoditakis et al., 2009
ItalyPresentCavalieri et al., 2014
SwedenEradicated2014 Invasive Lemmetty and Vänninen, 2014
UKEradicated2012 Invasive Powell et al., 2012

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page

The B. tabaci Mediterranean species is currently increasing its global presence. It is continually being distinguished from Middle East-Asia Minor 1 species of the B. tabaci complex around the world (Powell et al., 2012; Cavalieri et al., 2014). 

Risk of Introduction

Top of page

The risk to the EPPO region is primarily to the glasshouse industry in northern countries, and mainly concerns MED species and also MEAM1 species. Present legislation relates to B. tabaci, so reference to B. argentifolii should be avoided to prevent confusion in these areas. Since the recent introduction of this whitefly to several of these countries, the pest has proved particularly difficult to combat because of its polyphagy, its resistance to many insecticides and its disruption of biological control programmes (Prabhaker et al., 1985; Della Giustina et al., 1989; Mushtaq Ahmad et al., 2002).

Countries that already contain many begomoviruses that infect indigenous plants and weeds, and are associated with localized populations of B. tabaci that exhibit narrow host ranges may be particularly at risk from MED species. Should MED species become established in these countries its polyphagous feeding activities could enable viruses to move into new susceptible host plants, causing new crop protection problems.

Hosts/Species Affected

Top of page

MED species is documented as being polyphagous, having a host range of around 600 different plant species. This includes many glasshouse and field crops, as well as weeds. However, a study by de Courcy Williams et al. (1996) indicated that only a small number of individuals within a population can readily change host plants. It is the progeny of these particular individuals that lead to the species as a whole being highly polyphagous.

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

Top of page
Plant nameFamilyContext
Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)MalvaceaeOther
Acer (maples)AceraceaeOther
Amaranthus (amaranth)AmaranthaceaeOther
AnacardiaceaeAnacardiaceaeWild host
AnnonaAnnonaceaeWild host
AraceaeAraceaeWild host
Aristolochia (dutchman's pipe)AristolochiaceaeWild host
Asclepias (Silkweed)AsclepiadaceaeWild host
Asteraceae (Plants of the daisy family)AsteraceaeWild host
BalsaminaceaeBalsaminaceaeWild host
BignoniaBignoniaceaeWild host
BixaBixaceaeWild host
BoraginaceaeBoraginaceaeWild host
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis (cauliflower)BrassicaceaeMain
Brassica rapa subsp. pekinensisBrassicaceaeOther
Brassicaceae (cruciferous crops)BrassicaceaeOther
CannabidaceaeCannabidaceaeWild host
CaprifoliaceaeCaprifoliaceaeWild host
Capsicum annuum (bell pepper)SolanaceaeMain
Carica papaya (pawpaw)CaricaceaeMain
CaryophyllaceaeCaryophyllaceaeWild host
Catharanthus roseus (Madagascar periwinkle)ApocynaceaeOther
ChenopodiaceaeChenopodiaceaeWild host
CistacaeaWild host
ClusiaceaeClusiaceaeWild host
CommelinaceaeCommelinaceaeWild host
Convolvulaceae (Plants of the bindweed family)ConvolvulaceaeWild host
Cucurbita (pumpkin)CucurbitaceaeMain
EricaceaeEricaceaeWild host
Euphorbia pulcherrima (poinsettia)EuphorbiaceaeMain
EuphorbiaceaeEuphorbiaceaeWild host
Fabaceae (leguminous plants)FabaceaeMain
FlacourtiaceaeFlacourtiaceaeWild host
Gossypium hirsutum (Bourbon cotton)MalvaceaeMain
GrossulariaceaeGrossulariaceaeWild host
Lactuca sativa (lettuce)AsteraceaeMain
LamiaceaeLamiaceaeWild host
MalvaceaeMalvaceaeWild host
Manihot esculenta (cassava)EuphorbiaceaeOther
Menispermum (moonseed)MenispermaceaeWild host
Mentha (mints)LamiaceaeOther
Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)SolanaceaeMain
NyctaginaceaeNyctaginaceaeWild host
Origanum majorana (sweet marjoram)LamiaceaeMain
Oxalis (wood sorrels)OxalidaceaeWild host
PedaliaceaePedaliaceaeWild host
PlantaginaceaePlantaginaceaeWild host
PolygonaceaePolygonaceaeWild host
PortulacaceaePortulacaceaeWild host
ProteaceaeProteaceaeWild host
PunicaceaePunicaceaeWild host
RanunculaceaeRanunculaceaeWild host
RhamnaceaeRhamnaceaeWild host
RutaceaeRutaceaeWild host
SalicaceaeSalicaceaeWild host
ScrophularialesWild host
Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)SolanaceaeMain
Solanum melongena (aubergine)SolanaceaeMain
SphenocleaceaeSphenocleaceaeWild host
ThymelaeaceaeThymelaeaceaeWild host
TiliaceaeTiliaceaeWild host
Umbelliferae (Plants of the parsley family)UmbelliferaeWild host
Verbena (vervain)VerbenaceaeWild host
ViolaceaeViolaceaeWild host

Growth Stages

Top of page Flowering stage, Fruiting stage, Seedling stage, Vegetative growing stage


Top of page

Early indication of infestation may consist of chlorotic spots caused by larval feeding, which may also be disfigured by honeydew and associated sooty moulds. Leaf curling, yellowing, mosaics or yellow-veining may also indicate the presence of whitefly-transmitted viruses. These symptoms are also observed in B. tabaci infestations, however phytotoxic responses such as a severe silvering of courgette and melon leaves, mis-ripening of tomato fruits, stem whitening of brassicas and yellow veining of some solanaceous plants may also be seen (Costa et al., 1993; Secker et al., 1998).

The feeding of adults and nymphs causes chlorotic spots to appear on the surface of the leaves. Depending on the level of infestation, these spots may coalesce until the whole of the leaf is yellow, apart from the area immediately around the veins. Such leaves are later shed. The honeydew produced by the feeding of the nymphs covers the underside of leaves and can cause a reduction in photosynthetic potential when colonized by moulds. Honeydew can also disfigure flowers and, in cotton, can cause problems in lint processing. Following heavy infestations, plant height, the number of internodes, and yield quality and quantity can be affected, for example, in cotton.

Phytotoxic responses in many plant and crop species caused by larval feeding include severe silvering of courgette leaves, white stems in pumpkin, white streaking in leafy Brassica crops, uneven ripening of tomato fruits, reduced growth, yellowing and stem blanching in lettuce and kai choy (Brassica campestris) and yellow veining in carrots and honeysuckle (Lonicera) (Bedford et al., 1994a,b).

A close observation of leaf undersides will show tiny, yellow to white larval scales. In severe infestations, when the plant is shaken, numerous small and white adult whiteflies will emerge in a cloud and quickly resettle. These symptoms do not appreciably differ from those of Trialeurodes vaporariorum, the glasshouse whitefly, which is common throughout Europe.

List of Symptoms/Signs

Top of page
SignLife StagesType
Leaves / abnormal colours
Leaves / abnormal leaf fall
Leaves / abnormal patterns
Leaves / fungal growth
Leaves / honeydew or sooty mould
Leaves / necrotic areas
Leaves / wilting
Leaves / yellowed or dead
Stems / honeydew or sooty mould
Whole plant / early senescence

Biology and Ecology

Top of page

Eggs are usually laid in circular groups on the underside of leaves, with the broad end touching the surface and the long axis perpendicular to the leaf. They are anchored by a pedicel which is inserted into a fine slit made by the female in the plant tissue, and not into stomata as is the case with many other members of the Aleyrodidae. Eggs are whitish in colour when first laid, but gradually turn brown. Hatching occurs after 5-9 days at 30°C but this depends very much on host species, temperature and humidity.

On hatching, the first instar, or 'crawler', is flat, oval and scale-like in shape. The first instar is the only larval stage of this whitefly which is mobile. It moves from the egg site to a suitable feeding location on the lower surface of the leaf, after which its legs are lost in the next moult and the larva becomes sessile. It does not move again throughout the remaining nymphal stages. The first three nymphal stages each last 2-4 days, according to temperature. The fourth nymphal stage is termed the puparium, and is approximately 0.7 mm long. True pupation within the whitefly life-cycle does not occur, although the last (fourth) nymphal instar is typically referred to as a pupa after apolysis has been completed. Metamorphosis to adult occurs over about 6 days.

The adult emerges through a 'T'-shaped rupture in the skin of the puparium and spreads its wings for several minutes before beginning to powder itself with a waxy secretion from glands on the abdomen. Copulation begins 12-20 hours after emergence and takes place several times throughout the life of the adult. The lifespan of the female can extend to 60 days. The life of the male is generally much shorter, being between 9 and 17 days. Each female can oviposit over 300 eggs during her lifetime, these are often arranged in an arc around the female as she rotates on her stylet. Some 11 to 15 generations can occur within 1 year.

Virus Transmission

MED species is also responsible for vectoring many plant viruses in the genera Geminivirus, Closterovirus, Nepovirus, Carlavirus and Potyvirus. Whitefly-transmitted geminiviruses, now designated begomoviruses (Mayo and Pringle, 1998), are the most important of these agriculturally, causing yield losses to crops of between 20 and 100% (Brown and Bird, 1992; Cathrin and Ghanim, 2014). Begomoviruses cause a range of different symptoms which include yellow mosaics, yellow veining, leaf curling, stunting and vein thickening. Mansoor et al. (1993) reported that 1 million hectares of cotton were decimated in Pakistan by Cotton leaf curl virus (CLCuV) and important African subsistence crops such as cassava are affected by begomoviruses such as African cassava mosaic virus (ACMV) (see datasheet on African cassava mosaic disease). Tomato crops throughout the world are particularly susceptible to many different begomoviruses, and in most cases exhibit yellow leaf curl symptoms. This has caused their initial characterization as Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV). A number of different species of TYCLV have now been recorded from within both the New World and Old World where MED occur (Jones, 2003). MED species has also been associated with transmission of several other begomoviruses such as Tomato mottle virus, Tobacco leaf curl virus (TLCV), Sida golden mosaic virus (SiGMV), Squash leaf curl virus (SLCV), Cotton leaf crumple virus (CLCV), Bean golden mosaic virus (BGMV) and Cotton leaf curl virus (Simon et al., 2003), some of which cause heavy yield losses in their respective hosts. Dual infections have also been shown to occur (Bedford et al., 1994c).

Natural enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Amblyseius limonicus Predator Larvae Cuthbertson, 2014 UK poinsettia plants
Amblyseius swirskii Predator Cuthbertson, 2014 UK poinsettia
Amitus bennetti Parasite
Aschersonia aleyrodes Pathogen Nymphs
Beauveria bassiana Pathogen
Ceraeochrysa cubana Predator
Chrysoperla carnea Predator
Chrysoperla rufilabris Predator Texas
Delphastus pusillus Predator
Encarsia formosa Parasite
Encarsia nigricephala Parasite
Encarsia pergandiella Parasite
Encarsia strenua Parasite
Encarsia transvena Parasite
Eretmocerus eremicus Parasite
Eretmocerus mundus Parasite
Eretmocerus orientalis Parasite
Isaria poprawskii Pathogen Cabanillas et al., 2013
Nephaspis oculata Predator
Paecilomyces fumosoroseus Pathogen
Transeius montdorensis Predator Larvae Cuthbertson, 2014 UK poinsettia plants

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page

Natural enemies of whiteflies will, in most cases, have co-evolved with their prey and may, in some regions, be more efficient at controlling their native prey than an introduced one.

Various species of predatory mites have also been shown to be effective in feeding upon Mediterranean species of B. tabaci populations, including; Amblyseius limonicus, A. swirskii and Transeius montdorensis (Cuthbertson, 2014). No doubt they will also feed on other Bemisia species. A large range of natural enemies of B. tabaci have been recorded in China (Li et al., 2011). Their specificity to individual members of the B. tabaci species complex is unknown.

Entomopathogenic nematodes and fungi have been shown to offer much potential in controlling what has now been determined as MEAM1 species Bemisia populations (Cuthbertson et al., 2003a, 2005a, 2007a,b; Cuthbertson and Walters, 2005). The impact of these agents upon MED species has yet to be determined.

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page

Adults do not fly very efficiently, but once airborne, can be transported long distances by convection or by wind. The greater dispersive capacity of MED species has been instrumental in its greater economic importance. All stages of this whitefly are likely to be transported within the international trade of ornamental plants and cut flowers. The international trade in poinsettia and gerbera has played a significant role in the dispersal of Bemisia (Cuthbertson, 2013) to all continents.

Natural dispersal

As with other species of whitefly and biotypes of B. tabaci, MED species can easily disperse over short distances. This dispersal can occur in vast numbers when host plants become heavily infested and begin to senesce. Large 'clouds' comprising many millions of individuals have been recorded leaving a dying host crop. Dispersal is almost certainly assisted by wind.

Agricultural practices

Physical movement of infested plants, whether it be through plant care, harvesting or spraying, can result in adult MED species dispersal from an infested plant.

Movement in trade

Any susceptible plant or crop, where leafy material is produced for distribution and export, can act as a means of dispersing MED species. Seasonal plants such as poinsettia, bedding plants, grafted crop plants and cut flowers are all potential means for MED species distribution. However, this usually involves dispersal of whitefly larvae and pupae rather than adults. 

Plant Trade

Top of page
Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transportPest stagesBorne internallyBorne externallyVisibility of pest or symptoms
Flowers/Inflorescences/Cones/Calyx adults; pupae Yes Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye
Leaves adults; pupae Yes Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye
Seedlings/Micropropagated plants eggs; larvae Yes Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope
Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches adults; pupae Yes Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye
Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport
Fruits (inc. pods)
Growing medium accompanying plants
True seeds (inc. grain)

Impact Summary

Top of page
Animal/plant collections None
Animal/plant products None
Biodiversity (generally) None
Crop production None
Cultural/amenity None
Economic/livelihood None
Environment (generally) None
Fisheries / aquaculture None
Forestry production None
Human health None
Livestock production None
Native fauna None
Native flora None
Other None
Rare/protected species None
Tourism None
Trade/international relations None
Transport/travel None


Top of page

Currently difficult to determine specific economic damage caused for MED species.  

Environmental Impact

Top of page

The appearance of MED species within new areas is in most cases, the result of movement of infested plant material. The movement and establishment of MED species populations through this route brings along the possibility of insecticide resistance genes. This invariably leads to an increase in the use of insecticides as whitefly control becomes increasingly more difficult. This in turn can produce an ever increasing spiral in the levels of insecticide resistance and insecticide use, having a direct impact on the environment.

Detection and Inspection

Top of page

Numerous chlorotic spots develop on the leaves of affected plants, which may also be disfigured by honeydew and associated sooty moulds. Leaf curling, yellowing, mosaics or yellow veining could indicate the presence of whitefly-transmitted viruses, and phytotoxic responses such as a severe silvering of courgette and melon leaves indicate the presence of MED species, the immature stages being mainly responsible for this symptom (Costa et al., 1993). Other phytotoxic responses to themed species include mis-ripening of tomato fruits (Maynard and Cantliffe, 1989), white streaking of Brassica leaves (Brown et al., 1992) and yellow veining of some solanaceous plants (Bedford et al., 1998).

Close observation of the undersides of the leaves will show the tiny, yellow/white larval scales and in severe infestations, when the plant is shaken, numerous small, white adult whiteflies will flutter out and quickly resettle.

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page

B. tabaci is now widely regarded to be a multi-species complex. Consisting of as many as 34 species that are morphologically indistinguishable from each other. They can however, be distinguished molecularly (De Barro et al., 2011; Tay et al., 2012; Boykin and De Barro, 2014).

Differentiation of MED species from other whitefly species on the basis of adult morphology is often difficult, although close observation of adult eye morphology may often show differences in ommatidial arrangements between some species. At rest, MED species has wings more closely pressed to the body than Trialeurodes vaporariorum, which is a larger whitefly and more triangular in appearance.

The fourth instar or puparium can also be used to distinguish MED species from T. vaporariorum as a glasshouse pest. T. vaporariorum is 'pork-pie shaped', regularly ovoid, has straight sides (viewed laterally) resulting from the vertical wax pallisade surrounding each puparium, and in most instances, 12 large setae. MED species has an irregular, 'pancake-like' oval shape, oblique sides and shorter, finer setae. Although the number of enlarged setae in the MED species and wax rods in T. vaporariorum can vary according to host plant morphology, the two caudal setae are always stout and nearly always as long as the vasiform orifice in the B biotype. The length of caudal setae can be used to distinguish some Bemisia species.

For more information on the identification of B. tabaci from slide-mounted pupae, see Martin (1987).

Prevention and Control

Top of page

Cultural Control

Intercropping practices using non-hosts have been used in many countries aiming to reduce numbers of whiteflies on specific crops. However, intercropping with susceptible crops can promote whitefly populations, by offering a greater leaf area for feeding.

Weed species can play an important role in harbouring whiteflies between crop plantings and attention should be paid to removing these in advance of planting susceptible crops. Weeds also often harbour whitefly-transmitted viruses (Bedford et al., 1998) and may be a major source of crop virus epidemics, especially where MED species is present, due to its polyphagous nature.

Cultural control is generally much more effective where whiteflies are physical pests rather than virus vectors.

Host-Plant Resistance

The development of transgenic resistant plant and crop species through genetic engineering must be considered and accepted as a future method of control where whitefly-transmitted viruses are already endemic and causing severe crop losses (Wilson, 1993; Raman and Altman, 1994). Traditional sources of resistance have been used successfully for the control of other whitefly species.

Chemical Control

The following active ingredients have been reported as effective in controlling MED species worldwide: bifenthrin, buprofezin, imidacloprid, fenpropathrin, amitraz, fenoxycarb, deltamethrin, azadirachtin, pymetrozine. Chemical resistance is an ever increasing concern within the B. tabaci species complex. The MED species is widely considered to evolve stable resistance to the neonicotinoid insecticides commonly used for Bemisia control more rapidly than MEAM1 (Nauen, 2005). Hence, MED species neonicotinoid resistance is becoming increasingly widespread and problematic, with numerous cases being reported worldwide (Horowitz et al., 2005; Fernandez et al., 2009; Dennehy et al., 2010; Luo et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2010). However sequential chemical treatments have been shown under laboratory conditions to offer excellent potential in eradicating MED species on poinsettia plants (Cuthbertson et al., 2012).

A rotation of insecticides that offer no cross-resistance must therefore be used to control infestations.

A new group of environmentally safer insecticides that effectively kill whitefly by a physical mode of action are appearing on the market in many countries (Cuthbertson and Collins, 2015). These products do not have a specific active ingredient, but appear to utilise surfactant-like properties to overcome the protective waxes on whitefly larvae and adults.


The increased fecundity and polyphagous habit of MED species has exacerbated many control problems in field and glasshouse crops worldwide, compounded by insecticide resistance. It appears that no single control treatment can be used on a long-term basis against this pest, and that approaches should be integrated to achieve an effective level of control.

IPM appears to offer the best option for controlling MED species infestations without causing contamination of the environment. Beneficial insects are used alongside chemicals that offer a high level of selectivity, such as insect growth regulators. However, if whitefly-transmitted viruses are present, it is unlikely that the threshold of whitefly vectors would ever be reduced to a level where virus transmission would cease by using these methods, because MEAM1 is such an efficient viral vector. Plant and crop species that exhibit a high level of resistance to both vector and virus must also be considered when designing an IPM system.

Entomopathogenic nematodes and fungi have been shown to be successfully tank-mixed with several chemical products for use in eradication programmes against what has now been deemed as MEAM1 species in the UK (Cuthbertson et al., 2003b, 2005b, 2007b). Their impact upon MED species populations has not been fully determined. Cuthbertson et al. (2012) devised a sequential treatment programme that successfully eradicated MED species on poinsettia plants under laboratory conditions using both chemicals and entomopathogenic fungi.

Phytosanitary Measures

In countries where MED species is not already present, the enforcement of strict phytosanitary regulations as required for B. tabaci in general, may help to reduce the risk of this whitefly becoming established (Cuthbertson and Vänninen, 2015).

Because of the difficulty of detecting low levels of infestation in consignments, it is best to ensure that the place of production is free from the pest (OEPP/EPPO, 1990). Particular attention is needed for consignments from countries where certain B. tabaci-listed viruses, now on the EPPO A1 or A2 quarantine lists, are present. These viruses can also be transmitted by MED species.


Top of page

Barbosa Lda F; Yuki VA; Marubayashi JM; Marchi BRde; Perini FL; Pavan MA; Barros DRde; Ghanim M; Moriones E; Navas-Castillo J; Krause-Sakate R, 2015. First report of Bemisia tabaci Mediterranean (Q biotype) species in Brazil. Pest Management Science, 71(4):501-504.

Barro PJde; Liu ShuSheng; Boykin LM; Dinsdale AB, 2011. Bemisia tabaci: a statement of species status. Annual Review of Entomology, 56:1-19.

Bedford ID; Briddon RW; Brown JK; Rosell RC; Markham PG, 1994. Geminivirus transmission and biological characterisation of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) biotypes from different geographic regions. Annals of Applied Biology, 125(2):311-325.

Bedford ID; Briddon RW; Jones P; Alkaff N; Markham PG, 1994. Differentiation of three whitefly-transmitted geminiviruses from the Republic of Yemen. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 100(3-4):243-257.

Bedford ID; Briddon RW; Markham PG; Brown JK; Rosell RC, 1993. A new species of Bemisia or biotype of Bemisia tabaci (Genn) as a future pest of European agriculture. Plant Health and the European Single Market, BCPC Monograph, 54., UK: BCPC, 381-386.

Bedford ID; Kelly A; Banks GK; Briddon RW; Cenis JL; Markham PG, 1998. Solanum nigrum: an indigenous weed reservoir for a tomato yellow leaf curl geminivirus in southern Spain. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 104(2):221-222; 12 ref.

Bedford ID; Pinner M; Liu S; Markham PG, 1994b. Bemisia tabaci - potential infestation, phytotoxicity and virus transmission within European agriculture. In: Proceedings Brighton Crop Protection Conference, Pests and Diseases, vol. 2. Bracknell, UK: British Crop Protection Council, BCPC Publications, 911-916.

Bethke JA; Byrne FJ; Hodges GS; McKenzie CL; Shatters RG Jr, 2009. First record of the Q biotype of the sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci, in Guatemala. Phytoparasitica, 37(1):61-64.

Boykin LM; Barro PJDe, 2014. A practical guide to identifying members of the Bemisia tabaci species complex: And other morphologically identical species. Frontiers of Ecology and Evolution, 45:1-5.

Brown JK; Bird J, 1992. Whitefly-transmitted geminiviruses and associated disorders in the Americas and the Caribbean Basin. Plant Disease, 76(3):220-225.

Brown JK; Costa HS; Laemmlen F, 1992. First report of whitefly-associated squash silverleaf disorder of Cucurbita in Arizona and of white streaking disorder of Brassica species in Arizona and California. Plant Disease, 76(4):426

Cabanillas HE; León JHde; Humber RA; Murray KD; Jones WA, 2013. Isaria poprawskii sp. nov. (Hypocreales: Cordycipitaceae), a new entomopathogenic fungus from Texas affecting sweet potato whitefly. Mycoscience, 54(2):158-169.

Cathrin PB; Ghanim M, 2014. Recent advances on interactions between the whitefly Bemisia tabaci and begomoviruses, with emphasis on Tomato yellow leaf curl virus. In: Plant Virus-Host Interaction: Molecular Approaches and Viral Evolution. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 79-103.

Cavalieri V; Manglli A; Tiberini A; Tomassoli L; Rapisarda C, 2014. Rapid identification of Trialeurodes vaporariorum, Bemisia tabaci (MEAM1 and MED) and tomato-infecting criniviruses in whiteflies and in tomato leaves by real-time reverse transcription-PCR assay. Bulletin of Insectology, 67(2):219-225.

Chu Dong; Pan HuiPeng; Li XianChun; Guo Dong; Tao YunLi; Liu BaiMing; Zhang YouJun, 2013. Spatial genetic heterogeneity in populations of a newly invasive whitefly in China revealed by a nation-wide field survey. PLoS ONE, 8(11):e79997.

Chu Dong; Wan FangHao; Zhang YouJun; Brown JK, 2010. Change in the biotype composition of Bemisia tabaci in Shandong Province of China from 2005 to 2008. Environmental Entomology, 39(3):1028-1036.

Chu Dong; Zhang YouJun; Brown JK; Cong Bin; Xu BaoYun; Wu QingJun; Zhu GuoRen, 2006. The introduction of the exotic Q biotype of Bemisia tabaci from the Mediterranean region into China on ornamental crops. Florida Entomologist, 89(2):168-174.

Costa HS; Ullman DE; Johnson MW; Tabashnik BE, 1993. Squash silverleaf symptoms induced by immature, but not adult, Bemisia tabaci. Phytopathology, 83(7):763-766.

Cuthbertson AGS, 2013. Update on the status of Bemisia tabaci in the UK and the use of entomopathogenic fungi within eradication programmes. Insects, 4(2):198-205.

Cuthbertson AGS, 2014. The feeding rate of predatory mites on life stages of Bemisia tabaci Mediterranean species. Insects, 5(3):609-614.

Cuthbertson AGS; Buxton JH; Blackburn LF; Mathers JJ; Robinson KA; Powell ME; Fleming DA; Bell HA, 2012. Eradicating Bemisia tabaci Q biotype on poinsettia plants in the UK. Crop Protection, 42:42-48.

Cuthbertson AGS; Collins DA, 2015. Tri-Tek (petroleum horticultural oil) and Beauveria bassiana: use in eradication strategies for Bemisia tabaci Mediterranean species in UK glasshouses. Insects, 6(1):133-140.

Cuthbertson AGS; Head J; Walters KFA; Gregory SA, 2003. The efficacy of the entomopathogenic nematode, Steinernema feltiae, against the immature stages of Bemisia tabaci. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 83(3):267-269.

Cuthbertson AGS; Head J; Walters KFA; Murray AWA, 2003. The integrated use of chemical insecticides and the entomopathogenic nematode, Steinernema feltiae, for the control of sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci. Nematology, 5(5):713-720.

Cuthbertson AGS; Mathers JJ; Northing P; Luo WeiQi; Walters KFA, 2007. The susceptibility of immature stages of Bemisia tabaci to infection by the entomopathogenic nematode Steinernema carpocapsae. Russian Journal of Nematology, 15(2):153-156. HTTP://

Cuthbertson AGS; Vänninen I, 2015. The importance of maintaining Protected Zone status against Bemisia tabaci. Insects, 6(2):432-441.

Cuthbertson AGS; Walters KFA, 2005. Pathogenicity of the entomopathogenic fungus, Lecanicillium muscarium, against the sweet potato whitefly Bemisia tabaci, under laboratory and glasshouse conditions. Mycopathologia, 160(4):315-319.

Cuthbertson AGS; Walters KFA; Deppe C, 2005. Compatibility of the entomopathogenic fungus Lecanicillium muscarium and insecticides for eradication of sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci. Mycopathologia, 160(1):35-41.

Cuthbertson AGS; Walters KFA; Northing P, 2005. The susceptibility of immature stages of Bemisia tabaci to the entomopathogenic fungus Lecanicillium muscarium on tomato and verbena foliage. Mycopathologia, 159(1):23-29.

Cuthbertson AGS; Walters KFA; Northing P; Luo W, 2007. Efficacy of the entomopathogenic nematode, Steinernema feltiae, against sweetpotato whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) under laboratory and glasshouse conditions. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 97(1):9-14.

De Courcy Williams M; Bedford ID; Kelly A; Markham PG, 1996. Bemisia tabaci: potential infestation and virus transmission within the ornamental plant industry. Brighton Crop Protection Conference: Pests & Diseases - 1996: Volume 1: Proceedings of an International Conference, Brighton, UK, 18-21 November 1996., 63-68; 19 ref.

Della Giustina W; Martinez M; Bertaux F, 1989. Bemisia tabaci: le nouvel ennemi des cultures sous serres en Europe. Phytoma, 406:48-52.

Dennehy TJ; Degain BA; Harpold VS; Zaborac M; Morin S; Fabrick JA; Nichols RL; Brown JK; Byrne FJ; Li XianChun, 2010. Extraordinary resistance to insecticides reveals exotic Q biotype of Bemisia tabaci in the new world. Journal of Economic Entomology, 103(6):2174-2186.

Dinsdale A; Cook L; Riginos C; Buckley YM; Barro Pde, 2010. Refined global analysis of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Aleyrodoidea: Aleyrodidae) mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase 1 to identify species level genetic boundaries. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 103(2):196-208.

EPPO, 2013. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization.

Esterhuizen LL; Mabasa KG; Heerden SWvan; Czosnek H; Brown JK; Heerden Hvan; Rey MEC, 2013. Genetic identification of members of the Bemisia tabaci cryptic species complex from South Africa reveals native and introduced haplotypes. Journal of Applied Entomology, 137(1/2):122-135.

Fernández E; Grávalos C; Javier Haro P; Cifuentes D; Bielza P, 2009. Insecticide resistance status of Bemisia tabaci Q-biotype in south-eastern Spain. Pest Management Science, 65(8):885-891.

Ghahari H; Shojai M; Bayat-Asadi H, 2003. Morphological variations in different populations of Bemisia tabaci Gennadius (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Agricultural Science (Tabriz), 13(2):3, Pe25-Pe45.

Grille G; Gauthier N; Buenahora J; Basso C; Bonato O, 2011. First report of the Q biotype of Bemisia tabaci in Argentina and Uruguay. Phytoparasitica, 39(3):235-238.

Guevara-Coto JA; Barboza-Vargas N; Hernandez-Jimenez E; Hammond RW; Ramirez-Fonseca P, 2011. Bemisia tabaci biotype Q is present in Costa Rica. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 131(2):167-170.

Horowitz AR; Ishaaya I, 2014. Dynamics of biotypes B and Q of the whitefly Bemisia tabaci and its impact on insecticide resistance. Pest Management Science, 70(10):1568-1572.

Horowitz AR; Kontsedalov S; Khasdan V; Ishaaya I, 2005. Biotypes B and Q of Bemisia tabaci and their relevance to neonicotinoid and pyriproxyfen resistance. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology [The International Congress of Plant Protection, Beijing, China, 11 to 16 May 2004.], 58(4):216-225.

Horoxitz R; Kontsedalov S; Khasdan V; Breslauer H; Ishaaya I, 2008. The biotypes B and Q of Bemisia tabaci in Israel - Distribution, resistance to insecticides and implications for pest management. Journal of Insect Science, 8:23-24.

Jones CM; Gorman K; Denholm I; Williamson MS, 2008. High-throughput allelic discrimination of B and Q biotypes of the whitefly, Bemisia tabaci, using TaqMan allele-selective PCR. Pest Management Science, 64(1):12-15.

Jones DR, 2003. Plant viruses transmitted by whiteflies. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 109(3):195-219; 253 ref.

Karut K; Kaydan MB; Castle SJ; Kazak C; Ulusoy MR, 2014. Study on species composition of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius, 1889) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) on cotton in Çukurova plain, Turkey. Türkiye Entomoloji Dergisi, 38(1):43-50.

Kijima K; Ohno S; Takaki-Kikuchi M; Kurima M; Ganaha-Kikumura T, 2013. Range expansion of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) Q-biotype (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) observed in the Ryukyu Islands from 2009 to 2011. Kyushu Plant Protection Research, 59:57-63.

Kim EunSung; Kim YongGyun, 2014. A report on mixed occurrence of tobacco whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) biotypes B and Q in Oriental melon farms in Kyungpook Province, Korea. Korean Journal of Applied Entomology, 53(4):465-472.

Lemmetty A; Vänninen I, 2014. Bemisia tabaci biotype Q determined for the first time on poinsettia crops in Finland and Sweden. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 51(6):501-506.

Li C; Xu L-L; DY-M; Y-ZDu, 2015. Monitoring of biotypes and occurrence of Bemisia tacbaci in Jiangsu province, China. Chinese Journal of Applied Entomology, 52:124-134.

Li ShaoJian; Xue Xia; Ahmed MZ; Ren ShunXiang; Du YuZhou; Wu JianHui; Cuthbertson AGS; Qiu BaoLi, 2011. Host plants and natural enemies of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in China. Insect Science, 18(1):101-120.

Lu ShaoHua; Bai RunE; Zhai Qing; Wang BaoHai; Yan FengMing, 2016. New record of the Bemisia tabaci Q biotype in Tibet, China. Chinese Journal of Applied Entomology, 53(1):213-217.

Luo C; Jones CM; Devine G; Zhang F; Denholm I; Gorman K, 2010. Insecticide resistance in Bemisia tabaci biotype Q (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) from China. Crop Protection, 29(5):429-434.

Mansoor S; Bedford I; Pinner M; Stanley J; Markham P, 1993. A whitefly transmitted geminivirus associated with cotton leaf curl disease in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 25:105-107.

Martin JH, 1987. An identification guide to common whitefly pest species of the world (Homoptera, Aleyrodidae). Tropical Pest Management, 33(4):298-322.

Martin JH, 1987. An identification guide to common whitefly pest species of the world (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Tropical Pest Management, 33:298-322.

Martinez-Carrillo JL; Brown JK, 2007. First report of the Q biotype of Bemisia tabaci in Southern Sonora, Mexico. Phytoparasitica, 35(3):282-284.

Maynard DN; Cantliffe DJ, 1989. Squash silverleaf and tomato irregular ripening: New vegetable disorders in Florida. Vegetable crops fact sheet VC-37, Florida cooperative extension service. Gainesville, USA: University of Florida.

Mayo MA; Pringle CR, 1998. Virus taxonomy - 1997. Journal of General Virology, 79(4):649-657; 34 ref.

McKenzie CL; Bethke JA; Byrne FJ; Chamberlin JR; Dennehy TJ; Dickey AM; Gilrein D; Hall PM; Ludwig S; Oetting RD; Osborne LS; Schmale L; Shatters RG Jr, 2012. Distribution of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) biotypes in North America after the Q invasion. Journal of Economic Entomology, 105(3):753-766.

McKenzie CL; Hodges G; Osborne L; Byrne FJ; Shatters; RG, 2009. Distribution of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) Biotypes in Florida-Investigating the Q Invasion. Horticulture Entomology, 102:670-676.

Mushtaq Ahmad; Arif MI; Zahoor Ahmad; Denholm I, 2002. Cotton whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) resistance to organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides in Pakistan. Pest Management Science, 58(2):203-208.

Nauen R, 2005. Proceedings of the BCPC International Congress of Crop Science & Technology 2005, 1. 123-130.

OEPP/EPPO, 1990. Specific quarantine requirements. EPPO Technical Documents, No. 1008. Paris, France: EPPO.

Powell ME; Cuthbertson AGS; Bell HA; Boonham N; Morris J; Northing P, 2012. First record of the Q Biotype of the sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci, intercepted in the UK. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 133(4):797-801.

Prabhaker N; Coudriet DL; Meyerdirk DE, 1985. Insecticide resistance in the sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: aleyrodidae. Journal of Economic Entomology, 78(4):748-752.

Raman KV; Altman DW, 1994. Biotechnology initiative to acheive plant pest and disease resistance. Crop Protection, 13(8):591-596.

Roditakis E; Grispou M; Morou E; Kristoffersen JB; Roditakis N; Nauen R; Vontas J; Tsagkarakou A, 2009. Current status of insecticide resistance in Q biotype Bemisia tabaci populations from Crete. Pest Management Science, 65(3):313-322.

Secker AE; Bedford ID; Markham PG; Williams MECde, 1998. Squash, a reliable field indicator for the presence of the B biotype of tobacco whitefly, Bemisia tabaci. In: Brighton Crop Protection Conference: Pests & Diseases - 1998: Volume 3: Proceedings of an International Conference, Brighton, UK, 16-19 November 1998. Farnham, UK: British Crop Protection Council, 837-842.

Simon B; Cenis JL; Beitia F; Khalid S; Moreno IM; Fraile AY; Garcia-Arenal F, 2003. Genetic structure of field populations of begomoviruses and of their vector Bemisia tabaci in Pakistan. Phytopathology, 93:1422-1429.

Sun XiuXin; Xue Xia; Ren SuLi; Ren ShunXiang; Qiu BaoLi, 2013. The first record of a cryptic Bemisia tabaci MED species in Guangdong. Chinese Journal of Applied Entomology, 50(2):505-512.

Tay W; Evans G; Boykin L; Barro PDe, 2012. Will the real Bemisia tabaci please stand up? Plos One, 7:e50550.

Wang Z; Yan H; Yang Y; Wu Y, 2010. Biotype and insecticide resistance status of the whitefly Bemisia tabaci in China. Pest Management Science, 66:1360-1366.

Wilson TMA, 1993. Strategies to protect crop plants against viruses: pathogen-derived resistance blossoms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 90(8):3134-3141


Top of page

25/07/15 Original text by:

Andrew Cuthbertson, Food and Environment Research Agency, Sand Hutton, York, UK

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map