Cinara cupressi sensu lato (Cypress aphid)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Plant Trade
- Wood Packaging
- Impact Summary
- Environmental Impact
- Impact: Biodiversity
- Social Impact
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Cinara cupressi sensu lato
Preferred Common Name
- Cypress aphid
Other Scientific Names
- Cinara canadensis Hottes and Bradley, 1953
- Cinara cupressi (Buckton)
- Cinara cupressivora Watson and Voegtlin, 1999
- Cinara sabinae
- Lachnus cupressi Buckton, 1881
- Lachnus juniperinus Mordwilko, 1895
- Lachnus sabinae Gillette and Palmer, 1924
- Neochmosis cupressi
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
C. cupressi sensu lato (Cinara cupressivora) is an aphid, most likely native to North America and Syria. It is reported as causing significant damage or as having been recently introduced to parts of Europe, Africa, South America and the Middle East. At least one of the populations within C. cupressi sensu lato (Cinara cupressivora) is highly invasive, having become newly established on three continents in the last 25 years (since the 1980s). This has happened accidentally as the result of the introduction of whole plants for ornamental and/or forestry purposes. The aphids are very difficult to see and can easily be missed at quarantine inspection unless the inspector is alerted to their possible presence. Populations of cypress trees and other host plants have been decimated in some introduced areas.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Hemiptera
- Suborder: Sternorrhyncha
- Unknown: Aphidoidea
- Family: Aphididae
- Genus: Cinara
- Species: Cinara cupressi sensu lato
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page The taxonomy of C. cupressi sensu lato is controversial (Remaudière and Binazzi, 2003); it may contain several morphologically similar nominal taxa (Watson et al., 1999). Three of these taxa appear to be native to North America: Cinara sabinae on Juniperus sabina from Arizona, Colorado and Utah; Cinara canadensis on Juniperus virginiana from Ontario; and Cinara cupressi (Buckton) on Cupressaceae, possibly originating from California (Watson et al., 1999) but described from the UK (England). Lachnus juniperinus on Juniperus communis and Thuja occidentalis was described from Poland (Mordwilko, 1895). Eastop (1972) synonymized these taxa with C. cupressi (Buckton).
Watson et al. (1999) carried out a multivariate analysis of the morphology of C. cupressi sensu lato specimens from around the world. They concluded that some of the component populations might represent distinct species (e.g. C. sabinae and the previously undescribed pest population in Africa), although they cannot be satisfactorily distinguished morphologically.
On the basis of morphological and biological differences, Watson et al. (1999) described the aphid population damaging Cupressaceae in Africa and elsewhere, as a new species, Cinara cupressivora. They suggested that it probably originated on Cupressus sempervirens in an area between eastern Greece and just south of the Caspian sea (Watson et al., 1999). Part of the evidence supporting the separation of this population was the host-plant preferences. Also the areas of origin of the host-plants that were damaged most seriously, with the slow development of aphids on and serious damage being caused to hosts of New World origin. In addition, the faster development on and less serious damage to C. sempervirens and other hosts originating in Europe/Asia Minor. Watson et al. (1999) could not find any samples of C. cupressivora from North America. However, because C. cupressivora could not always be reliably separated from other members of C. cupressi sensu lato using morphological characters alone, Remaudière and Binazzi (2003) synonymized it with C. cupressi (Buckton).
It seems likely that C. cupressivora, C. sabinae and C. cupressi (Buckton) are good species, but are not reliably separable using morphological characters alone. It will probably require molecular studies to characterize the number and identities of distinct species within C. cupressi sensu lato. Once the number of taxa has been clarified it may be possible to find more reliable means of identifying them using morphological characters.
DescriptionTop of page Members of C. cupressi sensu lato are brownish-grey aphids covered in long, slender hairs, including hairs on the conical siphunculi. They differ from most other species of Cinara in having the second segment of the hind tarsus shorter than its basal width; numerous hairs present on the subgenital plate; primary rhinaria on the antennae lacking any sclerotized rim; and only three hairs present at the tip of the processus terminalis. These characteristics place them in the subgenus Cupressobium (Eastop, 1972; Blackman and Eastop, 1994).
C. cupressi sensu lato are distinguished from other members of the subgenus, Cupressobium by having little or no pigment in the middle of the hind tibia and the presence of no more than four to eight setae on the base of antennal segment VI, confined to its basal half (Watson et al., 1999).
The different populations or taxa in C. cupressi sensu lato cannot be reliably separated using morphological characters alone, although Watson et al. (1999) provided a discriminant function that helps to identify some specimens of Cinara cupressivora. Their multivariate analysis also demonstrated that Cinara sabinae might be partially identifiable using morphology.
DistributionTop of page The likely composite character of C. cupressi sensu lato means that the distribution list provided here is a composite of the distributions of several potentially distinct species. Cinara sabinae has been recorded only from the USA (Arizona, Colorado and Utah); Cinara canadensis from Canada (Ontario) and the USA (Pennsylvania); and Cinara cupressi (Buckton) from California and Britain (Watson et al., 1999); and Lachnus juniperinus was described from Poland.
The known distributions of C. cupressi (Buckton) and Cinara cupressivora overlap in Britain only (Watson et al., 1999).
The distribution map includes records based on specimens of C. cupressi sensu lato from the collection in the Natural History Museum (London, UK): dates of collection are noted in the List of countries (NHM, various dates). The specimens from Ethiopia are Cinara cupressivora Watson & Voegtlin (i.e. members of C. cupressi sensu lato) and were collected in Addis Ababa from a heavy, localized infestation.
Distribution TableTop 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/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|India||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Sikkim||Present||Agarwala and Raychaudhuri, 1982|
|Israel||Present||Introduced||1980||Invasive||Mendel and Golan, 1983; Halperin et al., 1988|
|Syria||Present||Native||Not invasive||Watson et al., 1999|
|Turkey||Present||Eastop, 1972; Watson et al., 1999|
|Yemen||Present||Introduced||pre-1999||Invasive||Watson et al., 1999|
|Burundi||Present||Introduced||1988||Invasive||Ciesla, 1991; Watson et al., 1999|
|Congo Democratic Republic||Present||Introduced||1990||Invasive||Ciesla, 1991; Watson et al., 1999|
|Ethiopia||Restricted distribution||Introduced||NHM, 2004|
|Kenya||Present||Introduced||1990||Invasive||Ciesla, 1991; Watson et al., 1999; IPPC-Secretariat, 2005|
|Libya||Present||Introduced||pre-1994||Al Najar & Nefrya, 2000|
|Malawi||Present||Introduced||1986||Invasive||Ciesla, 1991; Watson et al., 1999|
|Mauritius||Present||Introduced||1999||Invasive||Watson et al., 1999|
|Morocco||Present||Introduced||pre-1994||Invasive||Watson et al., 1999|
|Rwanda||Present||Introduced||1989||Invasive||Ciesla, 1991; Watson et al., 1999|
|South Africa||Present||Introduced||pre-1993||Invasive||Watson et al., 1999|
|Tanzania||Present||Introduced||1987||Invasive||Ciesla, 1991; Watson et al., 1999|
|Zimbabwe||Present||Introduced||1990||Invasive||Ciesla, 1991; Watson et al., 1999|
|Canada||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-British Columbia||Present||1990||Watson et al., 1999|
|-Ontario||Present||1990||Watson et al., 1999|
|USA||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Arizona||Present||Native||1990||Not invasive||Watson et al., 1999|
|-California||Present||1990||Watson et al., 1999|
|-Colorado||Present||Native||1990||Not invasive||Watson et al., 1999|
|-Pennsylvania||Present||1990||Watson et al., 1999|
|-Utah||Present||Native||1990||Not invasive||Watson et al., 1999|
|Brazil||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Sao Paulo||Present||Introduced||2000||Invasive||Sousa Silva & Ilharco, 2001|
|Chile||Present||Peña and Altmann, 2009|
|Colombia||Present||Introduced||pre-1991||Invasive||Ciesla, 1991; Watson et al., 1999|
|Belgium||Present||Introduced||pre-1980||Invasive||Latteur and Grasso, 1980|
|France||Present||Introduced||pre-1980||Invasive||Rabasse and Grasso, 1980; Watson et al., 1999|
|Germany||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Watson et al., 1999|
|Greece||Present||Watson et al., 1999|
|Italy||Present||Introduced||pre-1978||Invasive||Binazzi, 1978; Binazzi et al., 1998; Watson et al., 1999|
|Netherlands||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Watson et al., 1999|
|Poland||Present||Watson et al., 1999|
|Slovakia||Present||Watson et al., 1999|
|Spain||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Watson et al., 1999|
|UK||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Eastop, 1972; Ciesla, 1991; Watson et al., 1999|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page The following dates of introduction relate to the countries where the aphids have been reported as causing significant damage or as recent introductions. The countries where the relevant population could be native or where damage has not been reported, or where the date of introduction was so early that it is not known, are not included.
In Europe: Italy, pre-1978 (Binazzi, 1978); Belgium and France, pre-1980 (Latteur and Grasso, 1980; Rabasse and Grasso, 1980); Bulgaria, pre-1988 (Scheurer, 1991); and Portugal, pre-1996 (Ilharco, 1996).
In the Middle East: Israel, 1980 (Mendel and Golan, 1983); Jordan, pre-1987 (Mustafa, 1987); and Yemen, pre-1999 (Watson et al., 1999).
In Africa: Malawi, 1986 (Ciesla, 1991); Tanzania, 1987 (Ciesla, 1991); Burundi, 1988 (Ciesla, 1991); Rwanda and Uganda, 1989 (Ciesla, 1991); Kenya, Congo Democratic Republic (Zaire) and Zimbabwe, 1990 (Ciesla, 1991); South Africa, pre-1993 (Watson et al., 1999); Libya and Morocco, pre-1994 (Al Najar and Nefrya, 2000; Watson et al., 1999); and Mauritius, 1999 (Watson et al., 1999).
In South America: Colombia, pre-1991 (Ciesla, 1991); and Brazil (Sao Paulo), 2000 (Sousa Silva and Ilharco, 2001).
Risk of IntroductionTop of page The recent movements of the cypress aphid indicate the high risk of introduction of this damaging species to new areas. This indicates that the present plant quarantine inspections of ornamental and forestry planting materials are not sufficiently effective.
HabitatTop of page Watson et al. (1999) suggested that Cinara cupressivora may have evolved on Cupressus sempervirens, which occurs as native stands at relatively high altitudes in an area between eastern Greece and just south of the Caspian sea. When accidentally introduced to East Africa, this aphid caused serious damage to native stands of important indigenous Cupressaceae, e.g. Juniperus procera, in high-elevation forests and species of Widdringtonia in Malawi, including the endangered national tree, Widdringtonia nodiflora (Ciesla, 1991).
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page Different populations within C. cupressi sensu lato appear to have different host preferences. Cinara sabinae is known almost exclusively from Juniperus scopulorum. Cinara canadensis was described on Juniperus virginiana. Lachnus juniperinus was described on Juniperus communis and Thuja occidentalis. Cinara cupressi (Buckton) is relatively oligophagous, having been recorded on Cupressus species, J. scopulorum, J. virginiana, T. occidentalis and Thuja plicata in Europe. However, some of these host records may refer to a concept of C. cupressi (Buckton) that includes some of the other populations discussed here. Cinara cupressivora has been recorded from the widest host-plant range, including Callitris calcarata, numerous Cupressus species, Juniperus bermudiana, Juniperus macrocarpa [Juniperus oxycedrus subsp. macrocarpa], Juniperus procera, T. occidentalis, Tetraclinis articulata, Widdringtonia dracomontana and Widdringtonia nodiflora (Watson et al., 1999). Both C. cupressi (Buckton) and C. cupressivora have been recorded feeding on Cupressus species and T. occidentalis, although these populations have been confused in the past and this may account for the host overlap.
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
Growth StagesTop of page Flowering stage, Fruiting stage, Seedling stage, Vegetative growing stage
SymptomsTop of page Initial heavy infestation of small twigs and branches in the inner and lower canopy, during heat and drought, causes the progressive dieback from the outer edges of the canopy, with the foliage turning reddish-brown. As the branch tips die, the aphids move inwards, continuing to feed on the living tissue. On susceptible hosts such as Cupressus lusitanica, if preventive action is not taken the entire tree may die (Ciesla, 1991). On very tall, narrow species such as Cupressus sempervirens, dieback begins in the outer edges of the lower canopy and spreads upward towards the tip (Inserra et al., 1979).
It has not yet been ascertained whether the damage caused by the cypress aphid is due to mechanical damage, to a hypersensitive reaction of the tree to attack, or to toxicity of the aphids' saliva (Inserra et al., 1979).
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Fruit / honeydew or sooty mould|
|Fruit / premature drop|
|Fruit / reduced size|
|Growing point / dieback|
|Growing point / external feeding|
|Growing point / honeydew or sooty mould|
|Inflorescence / dieback|
|Inflorescence / discoloration (non-graminaceous plants)|
|Inflorescence / honeydew or sooty mould|
|Leaves / abnormal colours|
|Leaves / abnormal leaf fall|
|Leaves / necrotic areas|
|Leaves / yellowed or dead|
|Stems / dieback|
|Stems / external feeding|
|Stems / honeydew or sooty mould|
|Whole plant / early senescence|
|Whole plant / plant dead; dieback|
Biology and EcologyTop of page The likely composite character of C. cupressi sensu lato makes it difficult to generalize about the biology and ecology. The adult females may be either wingless or (occasionally) winged. In countries with cold winters at least some populations, e.g. Cinara sabinae and Lachnus juniperinus, produce sexual females and winged males in order to overwinter as eggs (Gillette and Palmer, 1924; Watson et al., 1999). In milder climates, Cinara cupressivora and Cinara cupressi (Buckton) reproduce asexually (by parthenogenesis) all year round. The number of generations produced each year depends on host quality and environmental conditions, with up to 11 or 12 generations per year recorded in Italy (Binazzi, 1997) and eight to ten generations in Jordan (Ciesla, 1991). The females have an average of 23.5 offspring, and an average lifespan of 21.9 days at 20°C and 12 hours of alternating daylight and darkness (Mustafa, 1987). Khaemba and Wanjala (1993) reported four immature instars in Cinara cupressivora in Kenya, whereas Kairo and Murphy (1999) reported three immature instars in the wingless form and four in the winged form in laboratory cultures. For C. cupressivora, Kairo and Murphy (1999) provided life tables at different temperatures, and development and fecundity were highest at 25°C (the highest temperature tested). There was no measurable effect of varying host-plant nutrition on the duration of the instars or overall survival. The wingless females of C. cupressivora were highly aggregative and exploited a wide range of feeding sites from young green branches to woody stems.
Environmental tolerances may vary between different populations within C. cupressi sensu lato. As mentioned above, L. juniperinus and C. sabinae survive cold winters in Central Europe and central North America, whereas the known distribution of C. cupressivora (in tropical areas, around the Mediterranean sea and on the edges of southern and western Europe) suggests that it might not be able to tolerate extreme cold (Watson et al., 1999). However, Kairo and Murphy (1999) found that the development threshold was as low as 0.61°C. The last population becomes damaging on forest trees that are growing in prolonged hot and dry conditions.
Members of C. cupressi sensu lato avoid strong light and dense colonies develop in the shade, with up to 80 aphids per 10 cm of branch. The aphids feed on the bark of small twigs and branches in the inner and lower parts of the main canopy (Ciesla, 1991). The sugary honeydew that is excreted coats nearby surfaces including the foliage. Sooty mould often develops on these sugary deposits.
The natural dispersal of cypress aphids is through the flight of the winged forms, which are produced a few times each year in response to crowding and environmental cues. The winged aphids are strong fliers and may be carried for long distances by the wind. Also, the aphids are very well camouflaged against the tree bark and they are easily transported on planting stock (Ciesla, 1991).
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page The natural enemy used for the biological control of Cinara cupressivora in Malawi, Africa, is the hymenopteran endoparasitoid, Pauesia juniperorum (Chilima, 1995), which has been reasonably successful. At the end of a biological control development project, another endoparasitoid of C. cupressivora was found in Syria that appeared to be more host-specific and efficient than P. juniperorum and this wasp was new to science. Unfortunately there was insufficient funding for this species to be described or fully screened for use as a control agent, but it might be a useful candidate as a second control agent if one was required.
Chilima and Owour (1992) list the indigenous natural enemy species found either attacking or associated with the cypress aphid in Kenya. Many of these predators are almost certainly generalists and unlikely to be well adapted to coniferous plant pests that are exotic to the region (Murphy et al., 1994).
In Italy, natural enemies such as coccinellids, syrphids and neuroptera, even when present in large numbers, were unable to prevent the damage caused by the cypress aphid (Inserra et al., 1979).
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page The natural dispersal of cypress aphids is through the flight of the winged forms, which are produced a few times each year in response to overcrowding and environmental cues (Kairo and Murphy, 1999). The winged aphids are strong fliers and may be carried for long distances by the wind. Also, the aphids are very well camouflaged against the tree bark and are easily transported on planting stock (Ciesla, 1991).
The cypress aphids can be transported on imported plant material (Remaudière and Binazzi, 2003).
Plant TradeTop of page
|Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Pest stages||Borne internally||Borne externally||Visibility of pest or symptoms|
|Seedlings/Micropropagated plants||adults; larvae; nymphs||Yes||Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches||adults; larvae; nymphs||Yes||Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope|
|Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|Fruits (inc. pods)|
|Growing medium accompanying plants|
|True seeds (inc. grain)|
Wood PackagingTop of page
|Wood Packaging not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|Loose wood packing material|
|Processed or treated wood|
|Solid wood packing material with bark|
|Solid wood packing material without bark|
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Fisheries / aquaculture||None|
ImpactTop of page Since the 1960s, stands of cypresses and junipers in many countries have been seriously damaged by C. cupressi sensu lato. Sporadic outbreaks have been reported from western and southern Europe, e.g. southern England in 1988 (Winter, 1989) and Italy in 1977 and 1997 (Inserra et al., 1979; Binazzi, 1997), and also from Jordan (Mustafa, 1987). The population since described as Cinara cupressivora has been recorded causing damage in Colombia and Mauritius (Watson et al., 1999). From its initial introduction point in Malawi, Africa, it spread through southern and eastern Africa, where it caused extensive damage in eight countries (Ciesla, 1991; Murphy et al., 1994). The main species of cypress grown commercially in Kenya and many other countries in eastern Africa, is Cupressus lusitanica, which is favoured for its rapid growth rate and excellent form. This species is highly sensitive to feeding by the cypress aphid (Ciesla, 1991). Observation of a stand of mature C. lusitanica in Kenya over 2 years indicated that 12% of the trees were killed outright. Other damaged trees did recover from the damage if left unfilled (Orondo and Day, 1994).
In the southern and eastern African region, the cypress aphid killed a total of US$27.5 million worth of cypress trees in 1991 and was causing a loss in annual growth increment of US$9.1 million per year (Murphy et al., 1996).
Environmental ImpactTop of page Juniperus procera is a major indigenous species of high-elevation forests in eastern Africa. Although not damaged as severely by the cypress aphid as Cupressus lusitanica, the loss of this tree in water catchment areas could result in soil erosion and the loss of water quality (Ciesla, 1991).
Impact: BiodiversityTop of page The national tree of Malawi, the native Mulanje cedar (Widdringtonia nodiflora), is confined to the Mulanje massif in widely scattered stands. The remaining population is severely threatened by exploitation, fire and attack by the cypress aphid (Chapman, 1994), and few new seedlings survive to full growth. The future of this potentially very valuable tree currently hangs in the balance, and a long-term programme of re-planting and conservation is needed to ensure its survival in the wild.
The endemic species, Juniperus procera, has also been negatively impacted by cypress aphid attack but is more widespread and less endangered than the Mulanje cedar (Ciesla, 1991).
Social ImpactTop of page The loss of commercial plantations in eastern and southern Africa had serious effects on the region's supply of domestic wood (Ciesla, 1991). Cupressus lusitanica was also a key agroforestry species and was widely planted for windbreaks, used as a source of fuelwood, and used for living fences and hedges. Numerous dead trees in rural and urban areas increased the risk of wildfire that could endanger life and property (Ciesla, 1991).
DiagnosisTop of page The identification of C. cupressi sensu lato requires the preparation of adult wingless females on microscope slides. This requires great care, as the tips of the legs and antennae detach very easily. Microscopic examination is necessary to discern the distinguishing characters mentioned above.
Detection and InspectionTop of page Examine the inner and lower parts of the canopy for signs of sooty mould growth, which develops in close proximity to colonies of the aphids. The aphids themselves are extremely difficult to see because their brown bodies are so similar to that of the bark on which they sit. Ciesla (1991) provided a photograph of a colony of Cinara cupressivora.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page The identification of species of Cinara requires the preparation of adult females on microscope slides, for study under high magnification. The wingless adult females of other members of the subgenus Cupressobium can be distinguished from C. cupressi sensu lato as follows:
- Cinara fresai has five to seven accessory hairs on the fourth rostral segment, and seven to twelve hairs distributed over the whole length of the base of antennal segment VI. However, in C. cupressi sensu lato, there are two to four hairs on the fourth rostral segment and only four to seven hairs on the base of antennal segment VI, confined to its basal half.
- Cinara juniperi has the hind tibia heavily pigmented over its entire length and six to thirteen hairs distributed over the whole length of the base of antennal segment VI. However, in C. cupressi sensu lato, the middle of the hind tibia lacks pigment and there are only four to seven hairs on the base of antennal segment VI, confined to its basal half.
- Cinara tujafilina lacks pigment on the base of the hind tibia and has eight to fourteen hairs distributed over the whole length of the base of antennal segment VI. However, in C. cupressi sensu lato, the base of the hind tibia has some pigmentation and there are only four to seven hairs on the base of antennal segment VI, confined to its basal half.
Prevention and ControlTop of page Host-plant Resistance
Infestation of the arboretum at Muguga Research Station, Kenya, created a natural experiment. Observations on the impact of infestation on different tree species in the arboretum indicated that there is a wide range of tolerance between different species (Obiri, 1994). Thuja spp. and Cupressocyparis leylandii were most tolerant, whereas Widdringtonia and Callitris species were least tolerant. In the genus Cupressus, the most tolerant species were Cupressus torulosa, Cupressus funebris and Cupressus arizonica, whereas the most susceptible were Cupressus benthamii [Cupressus lusitanica var. benthamii], Cupressus lusitanica (the main commercial species grown in Kenya) and Cupressus lindleyi [Cupressus lusitanica var. lusitanica]. Results with hybrid trees indicated that resistance breeding through hybridization might offer a viable long-term solution to the aphid problem.
The study of a stand of mature Cupressus lusitanica in Kenya indicated that the degree of aphid damage varied from one tree to another (Orondo and Day, 1994). C. lusitanica seedlings from open-pollinated seeds of 18 families were exposed to cypress aphid attack to determine the genetic basis and inheritance of resistance (Kamunya et al., 1997). The progeny of some highly susceptible trees were highly resistant, indicating that resistance was being transmitted in the pollen from resistant neighbours. The results indicated that there was a strong additive genetic control, which could allow for the effective selection and breeding for resistance. It was suggested that one cycle of selection might yield a resistant population. A subsequent study found that selection for resistance to aphid damage was unlikely to have adverse effects on economically important traits such as the height and diameter of the trunk (Kamunya et al., 1999).
Another study of resistance in 32 families of C. lusitanica in Tanzania identified the best families from Kenya and Uganda. Ten families were recommended for use in breeding, to widen the genetic base of future forests in the region (Mugasha et al., 1997).
A biological control agent, Pauesia juniperorum, was introduced to Malawi from Europe (Chilima, 1995) and has reduced the impact of the cypress aphid there. It was subsequently introduced to Kenya and Uganda (Day et al., 2003). Day et al. (2003) reported that the assessment of the outcome of this introduction has commenced in Kenya and that it was successful in Uganda.
Cypress aphids live deep inside the canopy because they avoid bright light. Consequently they would be very difficult to reach using topical applications of insecticides.
ReferencesTop of page
Al Najar OL; Nefrya KMN, 2000. Survey for aphid species in Libya. Arab Journal of Plant Protection, 18(1):24-27.
Binazzi A, 1978. Contributions to the knowledge of aphids on conifers I. The species of the genera Cinara Curt., Schizolachnus Mordv., Cedrobius Remaud. and Eulachnus D.Gu. present in Italy (Homoptera Aphidoidea Lachnidae). Redia, 41:291-400
Binazzi A; Covassi MV; Roversi PF, 1998. Role of Cinara (Cupressobium) cupressi (Buckton) and other sap-sucking insects in the decay of the common cypress (Cupressus sempervirens L.). Annali - Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali, 47:55-66; 22 ref.
Chapman JD, 1994. Notes on Mulanje cedar - Malawi's national tree. Commonwealth Forestry Review, 73(4):235-242,272-273.
Chilima CZ; Owour AL, 1992. A review of the natural enemies of Eulachnus rileyi (Williams), Pineus pini (L), Cinara cupressi (Buckton) and Cinara cronartii Tissot and Pepper in Africa. International Institute of Biological Control unpublished report.
Day RK; Kairo MTK; Abraham Y; Kfir R; Murphy ST; Mutitu KE; Chilima CZ, 2003. Biological control of homopteran pests of conifers in Africa. In: Neuenschwander P, Borgemeister C, Langewald J, eds. Biological control in IPM systems in Africa. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 101-112.
Eastop VF, 1972. A taxonomic review of the species of Cinara Curtis occurring in Britain (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Bulletin of the British Museum Natural History (Entomology), 27(2):101-186.
Gillette CP; Palmer MA, 1924. New Colorado Lachnini. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 17:1-44.
Ilharco FA, 1996. 2nd addition to the catalogue of the aphids of continental Portugal (Homoptera, Aphidoidea). Agronomia Lusitana, 45(1-3):5-66.
IPPC-Secretariat, 2005. Identification of risks and management of invasive alien species using the IPPC framework. Proceedings of the workshop on invasive alien species and the International Plant Protection Convention, 22-26 September 2003. xii + 301 pp.
Kairo MTK; Murphy ST, 1999. Temperature and plant nutrient effects on the development, survival and reproduction of Cinara sp. nov., an invasive pest of cypress trees in Africa. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 92(2):147-156; 34 ref.
Kamunya SM; Day RK; Chagala E; Olng'Otie PS, 1997. Variation and inheritance of resistance to cypress aphid, Cinara cupressi Buckton in Cupressus lusitanica Miller. Annals of Applied Biology, 130(1):27-36; 24 ref.
Kamunya SM; Olng'otie PS; Chagala E; Day RK; Kipkore WK, 1999. Genetic variation and heritability of resistance to Cinara cupressi in Cupressus lusitanica. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 11(3):587-598; 24 ref.
Khaemba BM; Wanjala FME, 1993. Some aspects of the biology of Cinara cupressi Buckton (Homoptera: Lachnidae) when bred under laboratory condition. Insect Science and its Application, 14(5):693-695.
Latteur G; Grasso V, 1980. About the recent presence of Cinara cupressi (Buckton) in Belgium. In: Raddi P, ed. Il Cipresso: malattie e difesa, 223-224.
Mordwilko A, 1895. Zur Biologie und Systematik der Baumlause (Lachninae Pass. partim) des Weichselgebietes. Zoologischer Anzeiger, Leipzig, 18:102.
Murphy ST; Chilima CZ; Cross; AE; Abraham; YJ; Kairo MTK; Allard GB; Day RK, 1994. Exotic conifer aphids in Africa: ecology and biological control. In Leather SR, Watt AD, Mills NJ, Walters KFA, Eds. Individuals, populations and patterns in ecology. Andover, UK: Intercept Ltd, 233-242.
Murphy ST; Nair KSS; Sharma JK, 1996. Status and impact of invasive conifer aphid pests in Africa. In: Varma RV, ed. Impact of diseases and insect pests in tropical forests. Proceedings of the IUFRO Symposium, Peechi, India, 23-26 November 1993. Peechi, India: Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI), 289-297.
Ortego J, 2006. Actualized checklist of aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in Jujuy and Salta. Registry of Cinara cupressi (Buckton). (Actualización de la lista de pulgones (Hemiptera: Aphididae) de Jujuy y Salta. Registro de Cinara cupressi (Buckton).) RIA, Revista de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, 35(1):107-120. http://www.inta.gov.ar/ediciones/ria/index.htm
Peña MA; Altmann SH, 2009. Recognition of the effect of Cinara cupressi (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in the sanitary condition of Austrocedrus chilensis by multispectral images. (Reconocimiento del efecto de Cinara cupressi (Hemiptera: Aphididae) en el estado sanitario de Austrocedrus chilensis mediante imágenes multiespectrales.) Bosque, 30(3):151-158. http://www.biblioteca.uach.cl
Rabasse JM; Grasso V, 1980. Les insectes ravageurs des cypres en France. In: Raddi P, ed. Il Cipresso: malattie e difesa, 217-222.
Remaudière G; Binazzi A, 2003. Les Cinara du Pakistan II. Le sous-genre Cupressobium [Hemiptera, Aphididae, Lachninae]. Revue française d'Entomologie (NS), 25(2):85-96.
Sousa Silva CR; Ilharco FA, 2001. First report of Cinara cupressi (Lachninae: Cinarini) in Brazil. Revista de Biologia Tropical, 49(2):768.
Watson GW; Voegtlin DJ; Murphy ST; Foottit RG, 1999. Biogeography of the Cinara cupressi complex (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on Cupressaceae, with description of a pest species introduced into Africa. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 89(3):271-283; 24 ref.
Distribution MapsTop of page
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/