Cinara cupressi sensu lato (Cypress aphid)

Pictures

Top of page

Picture

Title

Caption

Copyright

Infestation

Colony on branch of Cupressus lusitanica.

William M. Ciesla

Identity

Top 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 Invasiveness

Top 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 Tree

Top 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 Nomenclature

Top 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.

Description

Top 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.

Distribution

Top 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 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.

Last updated: 10 Jan 2020

Continent/Country/Region	Distribution	Origin	First Reported	Invasive	Reference	Notes
Africa
Burundi	Present	Introduced	1988	Invasive	Ciesla (1991) Watson et al. (1999)
Congo, Democratic Republic of the	Present	Introduced	1990	Invasive	Ciesla (1991) Watson et al. (1999)
Ethiopia	Present, Localized	Introduced			NHM (2004)
Kenya	Present	Introduced	1990	Invasive	Ciesla (1991) Watson et al. (1999) IPPC-Secretariat (2005)
Libya	Present	Introduced			CABI (Undated)	First reported: pre-1994; Original citation: 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		Invasive	Watson et al. (1999)	First reported: pre-1994
Rwanda	Present	Introduced	1989	Invasive	Ciesla (1991) Watson et al. (1999)
South Africa	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Watson et al. (1999)	First reported: pre-1993
Tanzania	Present	Introduced	1987	Invasive	Ciesla (1991) Watson et al. (1999)
Uganda	Present	Introduced	1989	Invasive	Ciesla (1991)
Zimbabwe	Present	Introduced	1990	Invasive	Ciesla (1991) Watson et al. (1999)
Asia
India	Present				CABI (Undated a)	Present based on regional distribution.
-Sikkim	Present				Agarwala and Raychaudhuri (1982)
Israel	Present	Introduced	1980	Invasive	Mendel and Golan (1983) Halperin et al. (1988)
Jordan	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Mustafa (1987)	First reported: pre-1987
Syria	Present	Native			Watson et al. (1999)
Turkey	Present				Eastop (1972) Watson et al. (1999)
Yemen	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Watson et al. (1999)	First reported: pre-1999
Europe
Belgium	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Latteur (1980)	First reported: pre-1980
Bulgaria	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Scheurer (1991)	First reported: pre-1988
France	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Rabasse (1980) Watson et al. (1999)	First reported: pre-1980
Germany	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Watson et al. (1999)
Greece	Present				Watson et al. (1999)
Italy	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Binazzi (1978) Binazzi et al. (1998) Watson et al. (1999)	First reported: pre-1978
Netherlands	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Watson et al. (1999)
Poland	Present				Watson et al. (1999)
Portugal	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Ilharco (1996)	First reported: pre-1996
Slovakia	Present				Watson et al. (1999)
Spain	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Watson et al. (1999)
United Kingdom	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Eastop (1972) Ciesla (1991) Watson et al. (1999)
North America
Canada	Present				CABI (Undated a)	Present based on regional distribution.
-British Columbia	Present		1990		Watson et al. (1999)
-Ontario	Present		1990		Watson et al. (1999)
United States	Present				CABI (Undated a)	Present based on regional distribution.
-Arizona	Present	Native	1990		Watson et al. (1999)
-California	Present		1990		Watson et al. (1999)
-Colorado	Present	Native	1990		Watson et al. (1999)
-Pennsylvania	Present		1990		Watson et al. (1999)
-Utah	Present	Native	1990		Watson et al. (1999)
South America
Argentina	Present				Ortego (2006)
Brazil	Present				CABI (Undated a)	Present based on regional distribution.
-Sao Paulo	Present	Introduced	2000	Invasive	CABI (Undated)	Original citation: Sousa Silva & Ilharco, 2001
Chile	Present				Peña and Altmann (2009)
Colombia	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Ciesla (1991) Watson et al. (1999)	First reported: pre-1991

History of Introduction and Spread

Top 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 Introduction

Top 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.

Habitat

Top 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 Affected

Top 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 Affected

Top of page

Plant name	Family	Context
Callitris calcarata	Cupressaceae	Other
Cupressocyparis (Leyland cypress)	Cupressaceae	Other
Cupressus arizonica (Arizona cypress)	Cupressaceae	Other
Cupressus goveniana (gowen cypress)	Cupressaceae	Other
Cupressus lusitanica (Mexican cypress)	Cupressaceae	Main
Cupressus macrocarpa (Monterey cypress)	Cupressaceae	Main
Cupressus sempervirens (Mediterranean cypress)	Cupressaceae	Other
Cupressus torulosa (Himalayan cypress)	Cupressaceae	Other
Juniperus bermudiana (bermuda cedar)	Cupressaceae	Wild host
Juniperus communis (common juniper)	Cupressaceae	Other
Juniperus oxycedrus (prickly juniper)	Cupressaceae	Other
Juniperus procera (African pencil cedar)	Cupressaceae	Main
Juniperus recurva (drooping juniper)	Cupressaceae	Other
Juniperus scopulorum (Rocky Mountain juniper)	Cupressaceae	Wild host
Juniperus virginiana (eastern redcedar)	Cupressaceae	Other
Tetraclinis articulata (juniper gum)	Cupressaceae	Other
Thuja occidentalis (Eastern white cedar)	Cupressaceae	Other
Thuja plicata (western redcedar)	Cupressaceae	Other
Widdringtonia nodiflora (sapree wood)	Cupressaceae	Wild host

Growth Stages

Top of page

Flowering stage, Fruiting stage, Seedling stage, Vegetative growing stage

Symptoms

Top 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/Signs

Top of page

Sign	Life Stages	Type
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 Ecology

Top 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 enemies

Top of page

Natural enemy	Type	Life stages	Specificity	References	Biological control in	Biological control on
Pauesia juniperorum	Parasite	Adults/Nymphs			Malawi

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top 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 Dispersal

Top 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 Trade

Top 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
Bark
Bulbs/Tubers/Corms/Rhizomes
Flowers/Inflorescences/Cones/Calyx
Fruits (inc. pods)
Growing medium accompanying plants
Leaves
Roots
True seeds (inc. grain)
Wood

Wood Packaging

Top of page

Wood Packaging not known to carry the pest in trade/transport
Loose wood packing material
Non-wood
Processed or treated wood
Solid wood packing material with bark
Solid wood packing material without bark

Impact Summary

Top of page

Category	Impact
Animal/plant collections	Negative
Animal/plant products	None
Biodiversity (generally)	Negative
Crop production	None
Environment (generally)	Negative
Fisheries / aquaculture	None
Forestry production	Negative
Human health	Negative
Livestock production	None
Native fauna	Negative
Native flora	Negative
Rare/protected species	Negative
Tourism	Negative
Trade/international relations	Negative
Transport/travel	None

Impact

Top 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 Impact

Top 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: Biodiversity

Top 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 Impact

Top 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).

Diagnosis

Top 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 Inspection

Top 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/Conditions

Top 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 Control

Top of page

Due 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.

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).

Biological Control

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.

Chemical Control

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.

References

Top of page

Agarwala BK; Raychaudhuri D, 1982. Two species of Cinara Curtis from India, with description of a new species (Homoptera: Aphididae, Lachninae). Akitu, No. 46:4 pp.

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, 1997. Further observations on the biology and ecology of the cypress aphid Cinara (Cupressobium) cupressi (Buckton) in Tuscany (I) (Lachninae). Redia, 80:45-52; 12 ref. [Published 1999]

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.

Blackman RL; Eastop VF, 1994. Aphids on the world's trees: an identification and information guide. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Chapman JD, 1994. Notes on Mulanje cedar - Malawi's national tree. Commonwealth Forestry Review, 73(4):235-242,272-273.

Chilima CZ, 1995. Cypress aphid control: first African release of Pauesia juniperorum. FRIM Newsletter (Forestry Research Institute of Malawi), No. 74:2

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.

Ciesla WM, 1991. Cypress aphid, Cinara cupressi, a new pest of conifers in eastern and southern Africa. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, 39(2-3):82-93

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.

Delfino MA; Binazzi A, 2005. Further data on conifer aphids from Argentina (Aphididae Lachninae Eulachnini). Redia, 88:3-7.

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.

Halperin J; Binazzi A; Swirski E, 1988. Additional species of Aphidoidea in Israel. Phytoparasitica, 16(3):231-237

Ilharco FA, 1996. 2nd addition to the catalogue of the aphids of continental Portugal (Homoptera, Aphidoidea). Agronomia Lusitana, 45(1-3):5-66.

Inserra RN; Luisi N; Vovlas N, 1979. The role of infestations by the aphid Cinara cupressi (Buckton) in cypress decline. Informatore Fitopatologico, 29(1):7-11

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.

Mendel Z; Golan Y, 1983. The cypress aphid (Cinara cupressi), a new pest of cypress in Israel. Hassadeh, 63(12):2690-2691

Mordwilko A, 1895. Zur Biologie und Systematik der Baumlause (Lachninae Pass. partim) des Weichselgebietes. Zoologischer Anzeiger, Leipzig, 18:102.

Mugasha AG; Chamshama SAO; Nshubemuki L; Iddi S; Kindo AI, 1997. Performance of thirty two families of Cupressus lusitanica at Hambalawei, Lushoto, Tanzania. Silvae Genetica, 46(4):185-192; 20 ref.

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.

Mustafa TM, 1987. Reproductive biology and population studies of cypress aphid Cinara cupressi (Buckton) and pine aphid C. maritimae (Dafour). Dirasat, 14(2):99-105

Obiri JF, 1994. Variation of cypress aphid (Cinara cupressi) (Buckton) attack on the family Cupressaceae. Commonwealth Forestry Review, 73(1):43-46

Orondo SBO; Day RK, 1994. Cypress aphid (Cinara cupressi) damage to a cypress (Cupressus lusitanica) stand in Kenya. International Journal of Pest Management, 40(2):141-144

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.

Scheurer S, 1991. A contribution to the occurrence and biology of some species of Cinara in the Rhodopen (Bulgaria). (Homoptera, Aphidina). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 38(4-5):371-378

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.

Winter TG, 1989. Cypress and juniper aphids. Arboriculture Research Note - Department of the Environment, UK, No. 80:3 pp.; 3 ref.