Liriomyza huidobrensis (serpentine leafminer)
- Taxonomic Tree
- Distribution Table
- 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
- 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
- Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard, 1926)
Preferred Common Name
- serpentine leafminer
Other Scientific Names
- Agromyza huidobrensis Blanchard, 1926
- Liriomyza cucumifoliae Blanchard, 1938
- Liriomyza decora Blanchard, 1954
- Liriomyza dianthi Frick, 1958
- Liriomyza langei Frick, 1951
International Common Names
- English: leafminer; miner, pea leaf; pea leafminer; South American leafminer
- Spanish: minador de la hoja; minador pequeño; mosca minadora
- LIRIHU (Liriomyza huidobrensis)
- LIRILA (Liriomyza langei)
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Diptera
- Family: Agromyzidae
- Genus: Liriomyza
- Species: Liriomyza huidobrensis
DescriptionTop of page Eggs
Size 0.2-0.3 mm x 0.10-0.15 mm, off-white and slightly translucent.
A maggot up to 3.25 mm in length. First-instar larvae are colourless on hatching, turning pale yellow-orange. Later instars are yellow-orange. The ratio of the cephalopharyngeal skeletons between the first and second instars is 1.80 and between the second and third instars is 1.47 (Head et al., 2002). The posterior spiracle forms a crescent with six to nine mounted pores.
The puparium is oval, slightly flattened ventrally, 1.3-2.3 × 0.5-0.75 mm, with variable colour from light brown to almost black.
Small, greyish-black, compact-bodied, 1.3-2.3 mm in body length, 1.3-2.3 mm in wing length. Females are slightly larger than males. In general, any agromyzid of this size with a bright yellow central area of the scutellum and bright yellow areas of the head and pleura, belongs to the genus Liriomyza. The subfamily Phytomyzinae has vein Sc becoming a fold distally, but not coalescing with vein R1 before reaching C; the genus Liriomyza has orbital setulae which are not proclinate (they may be reclinate or absent); 2 pairs orbital setae; C extending to M, which end in wing apex; cross vein DM-Cu present; scutellum yellow.
L. huidobrensis may be distinguished from other Liriomyza species by the head and leg yellow parts being a darker orange-yellow, the third antennal segments very dark, sometimes almost black on top, and the mesoplura is largely black. The overall appearance is of a small dark fly.
DistributionTop of page
L. huidobrensis originates in Central and South America and was absent from other continents until the 1980s. It was first detected in Europe in 1987 in the Netherlands where it was found on glasshouse lettuces; it is presumed to have been imported directly from South America. It has since spread considerably in Europe and especially the Mediterranean region, but particularly significant is the spread in central and eastern Europe where climatic conditions would be expected to deter its presence.
The pest previously believed to be pea leaf miner in the USA is actually Liriomyza langei (NAPPO, 2009).
L. huidobrensis has been intercepted, but is not established in Australia.
There are also reports from Italy, Guam, Comoros, Seychelles, Morocco, Syria, Java (east and west) and Korea.
Records for the Canary Islands, Spain and French Guiana (IIE, 1995) have not been confirmed.
See also CABI/EPPO (1998, No. 94).
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|
|Cambodia||Absent, unreliable record||EPPO, 2014|
|China||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Chongqing||Present||Zhou et al., 2000|
|-Fujian||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Gansu||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Guangdong||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Guizhou||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Hebei||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Nei Menggu||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|-Shandong||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sichuan||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Xinjiang||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Yunnan||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|India||Restricted distribution||Introduced||1994||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Uttar Pradesh||Present||Introduced||1994||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Indonesia||Restricted distribution||Introduced||1994||Mujica and Cisneros, 1997; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Java||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sulawesi||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sumatra||Present||Introduced||1998||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Israel||Widespread||Introduced||199*||Weintraub and Horowitz, 1995; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Japan||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Honshu||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Jordan||Present||IIE, 1996; EPPO, 2014|
|Korea, DPR||Present, few occurrences||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Lebanon||Present||IIE, 1996; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Malaysia||Present||IIE, 1996; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Peninsular Malaysia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Philippines||Widespread||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Saudi Arabia||Present||Dawah and Deeming, 2002|
|Singapore||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Sri Lanka||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Syria||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Taiwan||Widespread||Introduced||1999||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Thailand||Present||Introduced||1994||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Turkey||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Vietnam||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Comoros||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Kenya||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Mauritius||Present||Introduced||1992||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Morocco||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Réunion||Present||Introduced||1990||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Seychelles||Present||IIE, 1996; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|South Africa||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Canary Islands||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Tanzania||Absent, invalid record||EPPO, 2014|
|Zambia||Absent, unreliable record||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Zimbabwe||Absent, unreliable record||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Canada||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Ontario||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Mexico||Absent, unreliable record||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|USA||Absent, invalid record||CABI/EPPO, 2002; IPPC, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-California||Absent, invalid record||Poe, 1982; Spencer and Steyskal, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2002; IPPC, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Florida||Absent, invalid record||CABI/EPPO, 2002; IPPC, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Hawaii||Absent, invalid record||CABI/EPPO, 2002; IPPC, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Utah||Absent, invalid record||Spencer and Steyskal, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2002; IPPC, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Virginia||Absent, invalid record||CABI/EPPO, 2002; IPPC, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
Central America and Caribbean
|Belize||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Costa Rica||Present||Introduced||1989||Gómez, 1995; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Dominican Republic||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|El Salvador||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Guadeloupe||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Guatemala||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Honduras||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Nicaragua||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Panama||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Argentina||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Brazil||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Goias||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Minas Gerais||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sao Paulo||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Chile||Widespread||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Easter Island||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002|
|Colombia||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Ecuador||Present||IIE, 1996; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|French Guiana||Present||IIE, 1996; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Peru||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Venezuela||Restricted distribution||Spencer, 1973; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Austria||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Belgium||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Croatia||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Cyprus||Widespread||Introduced||1994||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Czech Republic||Present, few occurrences||Introduced||1993||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Denmark||Eradicated||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Estonia||Absent, confirmed by survey||EPPO, 2014|
|Finland||Present, few occurrences||Introduced||1997||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|France||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Germany||Present, few occurrences||Leuprecht, 1991; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Greece||Widespread||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Hungary||Present, few occurrences||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Ireland||Eradicated||Introduced||1997||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Italy||Restricted distribution||Introduced||1991||Suss, 1991; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sicily||Present||Suss, 1991; EPPO, 2014|
|Malta||Restricted distribution||Introduced||1989||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Netherlands||Present only under cover/indoors||Introduced||1989||NPPO of the Netherlands, 2013; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Norway||Eradicated||Introduced||1995||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Poland||Restricted distribution||Dankowska et al., 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Portugal||Restricted distribution||Introduced||1991||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Slovenia||Eradicated||Introduced||1999||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Spain||Widespread||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Sweden||Absent, intercepted only||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Switzerland||Present||Oudman et al., 1993; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|UK||Eradicated||1989||CABI/EPPO, 2002; IPPC, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-England and Wales||Eradicated||EPPO, 2014|
|-Northern Ireland||Eradicated||EPPO, 2014|
|Australia||Absent, intercepted only||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Guam||Present, few occurrences||Martinez and Bordat, 1996; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page L. huidobrensis is a major quarantine pest and is officially listed as such in many areas, for example, EPPO (OEPP/EPPO, 1984). It is primarily a tropical and warm temperate species and has been found up to 3000 m (Spencer, 1973), but in some parts of Europe it has shown an ability to become a major pest of a wide variety of ornamental or vegetable crops grown under glass. The action protocols for the UK (Cheek et al., 1993) provide an example of the contingency plans that should be in place in countries not yet invaded by this pest.
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page L. huidobrensis is highly polyphagous. The tabular data given here includes many records from Spencer (1990) who only listed generic hosts, but also records from other sources are included. Fifteen families of plants have been recorded as hosts, without a clear preference for any particular family.
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
|Allium cepa (onion)||Liliaceae||Main|
|Allium sativum (garlic)||Liliaceae||Main|
|Amaranthus retroflexus (redroot pigweed)||Amaranthaceae||Other|
|Apium graveolens (celery)||Apiaceae||Main|
|Beta vulgaris (beetroot)||Chenopodiaceae||Other|
|Bidens pilosa (blackjack)||Asteraceae||Wild host|
|Brassica rapa cultivar group Caixin||Brassicaceae||Other|
|Capsicum annuum (bell pepper)||Solanaceae||Other|
|Chenopodium quinoa (quinoa)||Chenopodiaceae||Other|
|Chrysanthemum morifolium (chrysanthemum (florists'))||Asteraceae||Main|
|Cucumis melo (melon)||Cucurbitaceae||Other|
|Cucumis sativus (cucumber)||Cucurbitaceae||Other|
|Cucurbita pepo (marrow)||Cucurbitaceae||Main|
|Emilia sonchifolia (red tasselflower)||Asteraceae||Wild host|
|Galinsoga parviflora (gallant soldier)||Asteraceae||Wild host|
|Gerbera (Barbeton daisy)||Asteraceae||Other|
|Gypsophila (baby's breath)||Caryophyllaceae||Unknown|
|Gypsophila paniculata (baby’s breath)||Caryophyllaceae||Main|
|Lactuca sativa (lettuce)||Asteraceae||Main|
|Medicago sativa (lucerne)||Fabaceae||Other|
|Oxalis (wood sorrels)||Oxalidaceae||Wild host|
|Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)||Fabaceae||Main|
|Pisum sativum (pea)||Fabaceae||Main|
|Portulaca oleracea (purslane)||Portulacaceae||Wild host|
|Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)||Solanaceae||Other|
|Solanum melongena (aubergine)||Solanaceae||Other|
|Solanum tuberosum (potato)||Solanaceae||Other|
|Sonchus (Sowthistle)||Asteraceae||Wild host|
|Spinacia oleracea (spinach)||Chenopodiaceae||Other|
|Valerianella locusta (common cornsalad)||Valerianaceae||Other|
|Vicia faba (faba bean)||Fabaceae||Other|
|Zinnia elegans (zinnia)||Asteraceae||Other|
Growth StagesTop of page Flowering stage, Fruiting stage, Post-harvest, Vegetative growing stage
SymptomsTop of page Feeding punctures appear as white speckles between 0.13 and 0.15 mm in diameter. Oviposition punctures are smaller (0.05 mm) and are more uniformly round. The larva is primarily a leaf miner (on peas the larva may also feed on the outer surface of young pods); mines are usually white with dampened black and dried brown areas, and are usually associated with the midrib and lateral leaf veins. Mines are typically serpentine, of irregular shape, increasing in width as larvae mature; there should be no confusion with the mines of the European chrysanthemum leaf miner Chromatomyia syngenesiae which are less contorted and uniformly white. Several larvae feeding on a single leaf may produce a secondary 'blotch' mine type and leaf wilt may occur (Spencer, 1973).
In potato, feeding punctures can often be seen all over the growing plant, giving the impression that a generalized outbreak of larval infestation is in process. But the development of the larval damage follows a rather fixed pattern, somewhat different from that of the adult fly population. First, the initial larval infestation and corresponding damage occur in the lower third of the plant, moving upwards to the top of the plant. At this time, practically the whole above ground part of the plant becomes necrotic and dies. Larval damage is consistently less severe during vegetative growth stages than when the plant is full grown. The occurrence of egg extrusion in the growing leaves might explain this phenomenon (Mujica and Cisneros, 1997).
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Leaves / internal feeding|
Biology and EcologyTop of page The biology of L. huidobrensis is not as well known as that of some other species of Liriomyza, so this general description therefore draws on information from other species. The life cycle is typical for Agromyzidae, though there is relatively little information published on the biology of L. huidobrensis. A useful summary is provided by Weintraub and Horowitz (1995).
Peak emergence of adults occurs before midday (McGregor, 1914). Males usually emerge before females. Mating takes place from 24 h after emergence and a single mating is sufficient to fertilize all eggs laid. Female flies puncture the leaves of the host plants causing wounds which serve as sites for feeding or oviposition (Mujica and Cisneros, 1997). Feeding punctures cause the destruction of a larger number of cells and are more clearly visible to the naked eye. Approximately 15% of punctures made by L. trifolii and L. sativae contain viable eggs (Parrella et al., 1981). Males are unable to puncture leaves, but have been observed feeding at punctures produced by females. Both males and females are able to survive on dilute honey (in the laboratory) and take nectar from flowers.
Eggs are inserted just below the leaf surface. The number of eggs laid varies according to temperature and host plant. Eggs hatch in 2-5 days according to the temperature. The duration of larval development is generally 4-7 days at mean temperatures above 24°C (Harris and Tate, 1933). Reductions in population levels of L. huidobrensis occurred in California, USA, when the daily maximum temperature rose to 40°C (Lange et al., 1957). There are three larval stages that feed within the leaves. The larvae predominantly feed on the plant in which the eggs are laid. Although the larvae of some species can exit one leaf and enter another, this has not been reported for L. huidobrensis. The larva leaves the plant to pupate (Parrella and Bethke, 1984). Pupae may be found in crop debris or in the soil.
Pupation takes place within the sclerotized skin of the third larva and gives rise to adult flies. Parthenogenic females have not been reported. Pupariation is adversely affected by high humidity and drought. Adult emergence occurs 7-14 days after pupariation, at temperatures between 20 and 30°C (Leibee, 1982). At low temperatures emergence is delayed. In southern USA, the life cycle is probably continuous throughout the year, although there is a noticeable first generation which reaches a peak in April (Spencer, 1973). In Israel, adults can be found from the autumn to late spring but not in summer (Weintraub and Horowitz, 1996). Adults are primarily active in early morning, shortly after sunrise, and again just before sunset (Weintraub and Horowitz, 1996). In California, USA, it completes its life cycle in 17-30 days during the summer and in 50-65 days during the winter (Lange et al., 1957). Adults generally live for 15-30 days, and females generally live longer than males. In northern Europe, L. huidobrensis is mainly a glasshouse pest, but a proportion of puparia can survive outdoors during an average Dutch winter (van der Linden, 1993).
In Peru, the life cycle is as follows: egg stage (3-4 days); first-instar larva (3-4 days); second-instar larva, 2-3 days; third instar 3-4 days; pupal stage (12- 18 days). Females had an average longevity of 3-28 days; male longevity was 2-6 days. The mean number of eggs laid per female in winter was 117 and in spring was 161 (Mujica and Cisneros, 1997).
Studies on L. huidobrensis developmental rates in lettuce at different constant temperatures (11 to 28±1°C) revealed a linear increase with temperature (Head et al., 2002). The theoretical lower threshold temperatures for development for each larval instar and pupae were 5.35, 6.30, 6.20 and 5.7°C, respectively. The calculated degree-days for each stage were 84.3, 30.1, 58.9 and 143.7, respectively.
Similar studies were performed on beans (15-30°C )(Lanzoni et al., 2002). They estimated the minimum developmental temperatures for egg, larva and pupa at 8.1, 7.7 and 7.3°C, respectively. The upper thresholds for egg, larva and pupa were calculated to be 31.1, 35.3, and 27.9°C, respectively. Their data are similar to Prando and da Cruz (1986) and Vercambre and De Crozals (1993).
L. huidobrensis is from a tropical to warm temperate region and has been found up to 3000 m and has been shown to be more cold-hardy than its near relative L. sativae (Wang et al., 2000), surviving a super cooling point of -19.55°C and a freezing point of -18.7°C compared to L. sativae with a super cooling point of -9.96°C and a freezing point of -9.06°C. This behaviour gives L. huidobrensis a far greater climatic range for survival. Indeed, Chen and Kang (2004) evaluated populations in China from 25°N to 42°N and found increasing cold tolerance with latitude. Supercooling capacity ranged down to -23.9°C. Even in severe cold, some leafminers were able to survive. Interestingly, Martin et al. (2005) found that no L. huidobrensis survived the winter in southern Ontario, Canada.
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Bracon intercessor||Civelek et al., 2002|
|Chrysocharis phytomyzae||Parasite||Larvae||Argentina||Vicia faba|
|Diglyphus crassinervis||Civelek et al., 2002|
|Halticoptera circulus||Parasite||Larvae||USA; Hawaii||onions; Phaseolus vulgaris|
|Opius meracus||Civelek et al., 2002|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page L. huidobrensis is spreading rapidly and therefore the current list of natural enemies may soon be out of date.
Salvo and Valladares (1995) reviewed the parasite complex of L. huidobrensis on faba beans (Vicia faba) in Colombia (part of its native range) and found that larval/pupal parasitoids caused a higher level of parasitism than purely larval parasitoids and that Opius scabriventris was the dominant species (52% parasitism). They also surveyed parasitoids on leafminers in Argentina (1999). In more recent work (2002) by these authors, they looked at the effect of 12 different plants on the size of L. huidobrensis and associated parasitoids. This could lead to improvement of commercially produced parasitoids for the control of the leafminer.
In Costa Rica, Hidalgo and Carballo (1991) found that weeds acted as natural reservoirs for parasitoids and in the same area Carballo et al. (1990) found that Diglyphus sp. was of similar importance to Opius spp.
In Portugese glasshouses the mirid bug Dicyphus cerastii preyed on L. huidobrensis and was a potential control agent (Carvalho et al., 2000).
A review of natural enemies and biological control of L. huidobrensis is provided by Waterhouse and Norris (1987).
An extensive review of biological control and IPM of L. huidobrensis is provided by Murphy and LaSalle (1999).
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page Natural dispersal
There is no information on the natural dispersal of L. huidobrensis, and very little information on dispersal in other species. Jones and Parrella (1986) measured the dispersal of L. trifolii in a chrysanthemum greenhouse and found that females flew signigicantly farther than males. Ozawa et al. (1999) measured the height at which L. trifolii fly in a greenhouse and found that they were primarily close to the plants. L. huidobrensis is a larger and stronger fly than L. trifolii.
L. huidobrensis is not carried phoretically by any other organism. It can be wind-blown into crops from surrounding vegetation/fields.
Liriomyza spp. do not transmit any pathogens. However, they may enhance the occurrence of plant pathogens. Adult females puncture both the upper and lower leaf surfaces (up to 100 punctures daily) to feed and lay eggs, leaving wounds which can serve as portals for bacteria and fungus and reduce photosynthesis. Since Chandler (1991) showed that the occurrence of leaf punctures from L. trifolii significantly increased the incidence of Alternaria leaf blight lesions (Alternaria cucumerina) on muskmelon leaves (Cucumis melo), it is possible that other leaf pathogens may be enhanced.
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|
|Fruits (inc. pods)||eggs; larvae||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Leaves||eggs; larvae||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches||eggs; larvae||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|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 L. huidobrensis is a serious pest of potato, vegetables and ornamental plants in the field and glasshouses in many parts of the world (Lange et al., 1957). In South America, it is a key pest of potato. In Europe and Mediterranean regions, L. huidobrensis is already a major pest of chrysanthemums, Primula spp., Verbena, lettuces (OEPP/EPPO, 1994), Phaseolus vulgaris, cucumbers, celery and Cucurbita pepo (ADAS, 1991). Treatments for chrysanthemums are recommended if 50 larvae are found in a random sample of the upper two-thirds of 10 stems (Spencer, 1982). Since it has spread to Mediterranean countries, it has appeared on outdoor crops, such as lettuce and sugarbeet (Echevarria et al., 1994). Although it initially proved to be a much more serious pest than L. trifolii in Israel (Weintraub and Horowitz, 1995), it has since come under natural biological control and is only occasionally a pest (Weintraub, 2001b).
Damage is caused by larvae mining into leaves and petioles. The photosynthetic ability of the plants is often greatly reduced as the chlorophyll-containing cells are destroyed (Parrella and Bethke, 1984). Severely infested leaves may fall, exposing plant stems to wind action, and flower buds and developing fruit to scald (Musgrave et al., 1975). The presence of unsightly larval mines and adult punctures in the leaf palisade of ornamental plants can further reduce crop value (Smith et al., 1962; Musgrave et al., 1975). In young plants and seedlings, mining may cause considerable delay in plant development, leading to plant loss.
Detection and InspectionTop of page Populations of adults may be monitored by placing yellow sticky traps at plant height (Weintraub and Horowitz, 1996), and Heinz and Chaney (1995) discussed action thresholds. Dankowska et al. (2000) used sticky yellow traps enhanced with 3-phenylopropionaldehyde to improve the catch of L. huidobrensis by 60%.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page L. huidobrensis was originally described from South America (Blanchard, 1926) and L. langei was described from California, USA (Frick, 1951); L. langei was later synonymized with L. huidobrensis (Spencer, 1972). However, work by Morgan et al. noted differences in the California populations as compared to other populations worldwide. Subsequent molecular work (Scheffer, 2000; Scheffer and Lewis, 2001) demonstrated that L. huidobrensis is a complex of two cryptic species; L. langei is now applied to the North American populations and L. huidobrensis to populations originating from South America. These two species, although similar morphologically, can be separated by PCR-RFLP (Scheffer et al., 2001). To distinguish adults of L. huidobrensis from other leaf miners of quarantine concern, the following simple characters can be used for initial identification. Accurate identification requires dissection of male terminalia (see Pictures). L. huidobrensis has inner vertical setae usually on a dark ground (yellow mixed with black) and outer vertical setae standing on a black ground; prescutum and scutum shiny black. L. trifolii and L. bryoniae have inner and outer vertical setae on a yellow ground, whereas L. sativae has inner vertical setae on a yellow ground.
Menken and Ulenberg (1986) have described a method to distinguish between L. bryoniae, L. huidobrensis, L. sativae and L. trifolii, using starch gel electrophoresis and enzyme staining. This method can be used on individual insects. Improved versions have recently been published by Oudman et al. (1995) and Collins (1996).
Knodel-Montz and Poe (1982) describe a method to distinguish L. huidobrensis from L. trifolii and L. sativa by the morphology of the ovipositor.
Kox et al. (2005) used the amplification of a 790 bp fragment of mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase II (COII) DNA, followed by RFLP, to distinguished species of Liriomyza including L. huidobrensis. This analysis was possible in larval, pupal and adult life stages.
DNA barcoding (a 527 pb fragment of mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I (COI)) has been applied to the identification of leafminer species in the Philippines (Scheffer et al., 2006). The authors concluded that these technique can lead to rapid identifications.
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Dacnusa sibirica is used as a biocontrol agent in glasshouses in Germany, but requires three to four releases per week (Leuprecht, 1992). In Dutch glasshouses, successful control was achieved using releases of D. sibirica in combination with Opius pallipes, in conjunction with the naturally present Diglyphus isaea (van der Linden, 1991). In Austria it was found that these parasitoids could be used in combination with cyromazine (Stolz and van Lenteren, 1996).
Control using nematodes can also be successful; Williams and Macdonald (1995) used foliar applications of Steinernema feltiae and species of Heterorhabditis (strain UK 211). Williams and Walters (2000) demonstrated that all three larval instars are equally susceptible to S. feltiae. Additional work was carried out to test the effects of some insecticides on the efficacy of S. feltiae; trichlorfon and dimethoate did not affect S. feltiae, but abamectin and deltamethrin reduced the nematodes ability to locate prey (Head et al., 2000).
Some varieties of potato are resistant to Liriomyza attack (Valencia and Campos, 1980). Resistance in potatoes has be ascribed to the high density of glandular trichomes (Anon, 1993). Mou and Liu (2003) examined 46 lettuce genotypes for resistance to L. langei. Wild species had significantly fewer leafminer punctures as compared to cultivated lettuce. This suggests that genetic improvement of cultivated lettuce to produce resistant varieties is feasible.
Some insecticides, particularly abamectin (Weintraub and Horowitz, 1998; Weintraub 2001; Hidrayani et al, 2005), the growth regulator cyromazine (Veire, 1991; Staay, 1992; Leuprecht, 1993; Weintraub and Horowitz, 1998; Weintraub 2001) and spinosad (Weintraub and Mujica, 2006) provide effective control against larvae because these insecticides are translaminar, but leaf miner resistance can sometimes make control of adults difficult (Parrella et al., 1984; Macdonald, 1991).
Some botanical insecticides are also effective in controlling larvae: Banchio et al. (2003) demonstrated that extracts of the fruit from Melia azedarach are effective against larvae and are a feeding deterrent to adults, resulting in rduced oviposition rates. Neem has also been shown to be effective against larvae (Weintraub and Horowitz, 1997; Civelek et al., 2002).
Integrated Pest Management
Cisneros and Gregory (1994) and Mujioca and Cisneros (1997) describe IPM practices for potato, developed by the International Potato Center (CIP), Peru. Other measures, such as physical barriers, are also effective (Ester, 1993).
All stages are killed within a few weeks by cold storage at 0°C. Newly-laid eggs are the most resistant stage and it is recommended that cuttings of infested ornamental plants be maintained under normal glasshouse conditions for 3-4 days after lifting, to allow eggs to hatch. Subsequent storage of the plants at 0°C for 1-2 weeks should then kill off leaf miner larvae (Webb and Smith, 1970).
To avoid the introduction of L. huidobrensis (and other leaf miner species) into further European countries, EPPO (OEPP/EPPO, 1990) recommended that propagating material (except seeds) of Capsicum, carnations, celery, chrysanthemums, Cucumis, Gerbera, Gypsophila, lettuces, Senecio hybridus and tomatoes from countries where the pests occur must have been inspected at least every month during the previous 3 months and found pest-free. A phytosanitary certificate should be required for cut flowers and for vegetables with leaves.
ReferencesTop of page
ADAS, 1991. Protected crops technical notes. Booklet, Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. UK: MAFF, No. 144.
Anon, 1993. CIP in 1992: Perogram Report. Lima, Peru: International Potato Center.
Banchio E; Valladares G; Defago M; Palacios S; Carpinella C, 2003. Effects of Melia azedarachi, (Meliaceae) fruit extracts on the leafminer Liriomyza huidobrensis, (Diptera, Agromyzidae): assessment in laboratory and fild experiments. Annals of Applied Biology, 143(2):187-193.
Blanchard E, 1926. A dipterous leaf-miner on Cineraria, new to science. Rev. Soc. Entomol. Argent. 1:10-11.
Carvalho P; Mexia A; Albajes R, ed. , Sekeroglu E, 2000. First approach on the potential role of Dicyphus cerastii Wagner (Hemiptera: Miridae), as natural control agent in Portuguese greenhouses. In: Proceedings of IOBC-WPRS Working Group "Integrated Control in Protected Crops, Mediterranean Climate" Antalya, Turkey, 24-28 April 2000. Bulletin OILB-SROP, 23(1):261-264.
Cheek S; MacDonald OC; Bartlett PW, 1993. Statutory action against Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard) in the United Kingdom. Liriomyza. Conference on Leaf-Mining Flies in Cultivated Plants Paris, France: Centre de Cooperation Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Developpement (CIRAD), 79-86.
Chen B; Kang L, 2004. Variation in cold hardiness of Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae) along latitudinal gradients. Environmental Entomology, 33(2):155-164.
Civelek HS; Weintraub PG; Durmusoglu E, 2002. The efficacy of two different neem [Azadirachta Indica A Juss (Melacaeae)] formulations on the larvae of Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard) and Liriomyza trifolii (Burgess) (Diptera: Agromyzidae) International Journal of Dipterologgy Research 13:87-91.
Collins DW, 1996. The separation of Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae) from related indigenous and non-indigenous species encountered in the United Kingdom using cellulose acetate electrophoresis. Annals of Applied Biology, 128(3):387-398; 10 ref.
Dankowska E; Baranowski T; Albajes R, ed. , Sekeroglu E, 2000. Studies on the detection of the presence of Liriomyza huidobrensis in glasshouses in Poland. In: Proceedings of IOBC-WPRS Working Group "Integrated Control in Protected Crops, Mediterranean Climate", Antalya, Turkey, 24-28 April, 2000. Bulletin OILB-SROP, 23(1):135-138 (in English).
EPPO, 1990. Specific quarantine requirements. EPPO Technical Documents, No. 1008. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization.
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
Ester A, 1993. Protection of field vegetables against insect attacks by covering the crop with polyethylene nets. Verslag - Proefstation voor de Akkerbouw en de Groenteteelt in de Vollegrond, No. 154:76 pp.
Frick KE, 1951. Liriomyza langei, a new species of leafminer of economic importance in Clifornia. Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 27:81-88.
Gómez BY, 1993. Muestreo y dinámica poblacional de Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard) en el cultivo de la papa (Solanum tuberosum). Taller de actualización sobre Liriomyza huidobrensis y perspectivas para la futuras investigaciones. Cartago, Costa Rica: Ministerio de Agricultura y CATIE, 1-8.
Head J; Walters KFA; Langton S, 2000. The compatibility of the entomopathogenic nematode, Steinernema feltiae, and chemical insecticides for the control of the South American leafminer, Liriomyza huidobrensis. BioControl, 45(3):345-353; 19 ref.
Head J; Walters KFA; Langton S, 2002. Utilisation of morphological features in life table studies of Liriomyza huidobrensis (Dipt., Agromyzidae) developing in lettuce. Journal of Applied Entomology, 126(7/8):349-354; 33 ref.
Hidrayani P; Rauf A; Ridland PM; Hoffmann AA, 2005. Pesticide applications on Java potato fields are ineffective in controlling leafminers, and have antagonistic effects on natural enemies of leafminers. International Journal of Pest Management, 51(3):181-187.
IPPC, 2009. Regulatory action for pea leaf miner (Liriomyza huidobrensis). IPPC Official Pest Report, USA-02/2. Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/index.php?id=1110520&no_cache=1&type=pestreport&L=0
Iwasaki A, 2011. Dispersal of an introduced pest, Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard) (Diptera: Agromyzidae) during first ten years after discovery of the pest in Hokkaido. Annual Report of the Society of Plant Protection of North Japan, No.62:123-126. http://njp.ac.affrc.go.jp/index.html
Kasugai K; Iwaizumi R; Kumagai M; Tsuchiya T, 2001. Agromyzidae (Diptera: Agromyzidae) detected in the import plant quarantine of Japan. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service, Japan, No. 37, 105-109 (in Japanese with English summary).
Kox LFF; van den Beld HE; Lindhout BI; de Goffau LJW, 2005. Identification of economically important Liriomyza species by PCR-RFLP analysis. EPPO Bulletin, 35(1)79-85.
Lange WH; Gricarick AA; Carlson EC, 1957. Serpentine leafminer damage. California Agriculture 11:3-5.
Lanzoni A; Bazzocchi GG; Burgio G; Fiacconi MR, 2002. Comparative life history of Liriomyza trifolii and Liriomyza huidobrenss (Diptera: Agromyzidae) on beans: effect of temperature on development. Environmental Entomology, 31(5):797-803.
Linden A van der, 1991. Biological control of the leafminer Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard) in Dutch glasshouse tomatoes. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen, Rijksuniversiteit Gent, 56(2a):265-271.
Linden A van der, 1993. Overwintering of Liriomyza bryoniae and Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the Section Experimental and Applied Entomology of the Netherlands Entomological Society, No. 4:145-150
Macdonald OC, 1991. Responses of the alien leaf miners Liriomyza trifolii and Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae) to some pesticides scheduled for their control in the UK. Crop Protection, 10(6):509-513.
Martin AD; Hallett RH; Sears MK; McDonald MR, 2005. Overwintering ability of Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard) (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in southern Ontario, Canada. Environmental Entomology, 34(4):743-747.
Martinez M; Bordat D, 1996. Note on the occurrence of Liriomyza sativae Blanchard in Sudan and Cameroon (Diptera, Agromyzidae). Bulletin de la Socie^acute~te^acute~ Entomologique de France, 101(1):71-73; 3 ref.
McGregor EA, 1914. The serpentine leafminer on cotton. Journal of Economic Entomology, 7:227-454.
Morgan DJW; Reitz SR; Atkinson PW; Trumble JT, 2000. The resolution of Californian populations of Liriomyza huidobrensis and Liriomyza trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae) using PCR. Heredity, 85(1):53-61; 21 ref.
Mou BQ; Liu YB, 2003. Leafminer resistance in lettuce. Hortscience, 38(4):570-572.
Mujica N; Cisneros F, 1997. Developing IPM components for leafminer fly in the Ca±ete Valley of Peru. Program Report 1995-96. Lima, Peru: International Potato Center (CIP), 177-184.
Murphy ST; LaSalle J, 1999. Balancing biological control strategies in the IPM of New World invasive Liriomyza leafminers in field vegetable crops. BioControl, 20(3):91N-104N.
Musgrave CA; Poe SL; Weems HV Jr, 1975. The vegetable leafminer, Liriomyza sativae Blanchard (Diptera: Agromyzidae), in Florida. Entomology Circular, Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, No. 162:4 pp.
NAPPO, 2009. Phytosanitary Alert System: Regulatory Action for Pea Leaf Miner (Liriomyza huidobrensis) - United States. Phytosanitary Alert System: Regulatory Action for Pea Leaf Miner (Liriomyza huidobrensis) - United States. NAPPO. http://www.pestalert.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=393
Oudman L; Aukema B; Stigter H; Menken SBJ, 1993. Spatial and temporal variation in populations of Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera, Agromyzidae). Proceedings of the Section Experimental and Applied Entomology of the Netherlands Entomological Society, 4:169-174.
Ozawa A; Saito T; Ota M, 1999. Dispersal of adults of American Serpentine Leafminer, Liriomyza trifolii (Burgess) (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in fields. Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology, 43(1):49-54; 18 ref.
Poe SL, 1982. Implications of the USDA/APHIS-PPQ Decision on Flower Imports. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Industry Conference on the Leafminer. San Diego, Califormia, USA, 117-121.
Prando HF; da Cruz FZ, 1986. Biological aspects of Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard, 1926) (Diptera, Agromyzidae) in laboratory. Annals of the Society of Entomology, Brasil, 15:78-88.
Rabaud T, 2001. Diseases and pests of lambs lettuce. (Maladies et ravageurs de la mache.) PHM Revue Horticole, 425, 42-43.
Rauf A; Shepard BM; Johnson MW, 2000. Leafminers in vegetables, ornamental plants and weeds in Indonesia: surveys of host crops, species composition and parasitoids. International Journal of Pest Management, 46(4):257-266; 40 ref.
Rosichon Ubaidillah; LaSalle J; Aunu Rauf, 2000. A new species of Zagrammosoma (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) from the Indo-Australian region, a parasitoid of the invasive pest species Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Oriental Insects, 34:221-228; 29 ref.
Salvo A; Valladares G, 1995. Complejo parasitico (Hymenoptera:Parasitica) de Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae) en haba. AgriScientia, 12:39-47.
Salvo A; Valladares G, 1999. Parasitoid assemblage size and host ranges in a parasitoid (Hymenoptera)-agromyzid (Diptera) system from central Argentina. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 89(2):193-197; 25 ref.
Salvo A; Valladares G, 2002. Plant-related intraspecific size variation in parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Parasitica) of a polyphagous leafminer (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Environmental Entomology, 31(5):874-879.
Scheffer SJ; Lewis ML, 2001. Two nuclear genes confirm mitochondrial evidence of cryptic species within Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 94(5):648-653; 35 ref.
Scheffer SJ; Lewis ML; Joshi RC, 2006. DNA barcoding applied to invasive leafminers (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in the Philippines. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 99(2):204-210.
Scheffer SJ; Wijesekara A; Visser D; Hallett RH, 2001. Polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment-length polymorphism method to distinguish Liriomyza huidobrensis from L. langei (Diptera: Agromyzidae) applied to three recent leafminer invasions. Journal of Economic Entomology, 94(5):1177-1182; [Available online at http://www.entsoc.org/pubs/jee/jeetocs/].
Shiao ShiuhFeng; Wu WenJer, 2000. Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard), a newly invaded insect of economic importance to Taiwan (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Plant Protection Bulletin (Taipei), 42(4):249-254; 15 ref.
Smith FF; Boswell AL; Wave HE, 1962. New chrysanthemum leaf miner species. Florists' Review, 130:29-30.
Smith IM; McNamara DG; Scott PR; Holderness M, 1997. Quarantine pests for Europe. Second Edition. Data sheets on quarantine pests for the European Union and for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Quarantine pests for Europe. Second Edition. Data sheets on quarantine pests for the European Union and for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization., Ed. 2:vii + 1425 pp.; many ref.
Staay M van der, 1992. Chemical control of the larvae of the leafminer Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard) in lettuce. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen, Universiteit Gent, 57(2b):473-478.
Valencia VL; Campos R, 1980. Deteccion de resistencia a los danos de la mosca minadora (Liriomyza huidobrensis B.) y del acaro blanco (Polyphagotarsonemus latus) en variedades comerciales de papa. Revista Peruana de Entomologia, 22:21-23.
Vercambre B; De Crozals A, 1993. Relation entre Liriomyza huidobrensis et Liriomyza trifolii a l’Ile de la Reunion. In Liriomyza Conference on Leafmining Flies in Cultivated Plants. Montpelier, France: CIRAD, 71-77.
Wang Yin; Lei ZhongRen; Wen JinZeng; Sun FuZai; Wu KongMing, 2000. On the overwintering and cold-hardiness of the vegetable leafminer Liriomyza sativae Blanchard. Acta Phytophylacica Sinica, 27(1):32-36; 6 ref.
Webb RE; Smith FF, 1970. Survival of eggs of Liriomyza munda in chrysanthemums during cold storage. Journal of Economic Entomology, 63:1359-1361.
Weintraub PG, 2001. Effects of cyromazine and abamectin on the pea leafminer Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae) and its parasitoid Diglyphus isaea (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) in potatoes. Crop Protection, 20(3):207-213; 17 ref.
Weintraub PG; Horowitz AR, 1997. Systemic effects of a neem insecticide on Liriomyza huidobrensis larvae. Phytoparasitica, 26:231-240.
Weintraub PG; Horowitz AR, 1998. Effects of translaminar versus conventional insecticides on Liriomyza huidobrensis (Diptera: Agromyzidae) and Diglyphus isaea (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) populations in celery. Journal of Economic Entomology, 91(5):1180-1185; 19 ref.
Weintraub PG; Mujica N, 2006. Systemic effects of a spinosad insecticide on Liriomyza huidobrensis larvae. Phytoparasitica, 34:21-24.
Williams EC; Macdonald OC, 1995. Critical factors required by the nematode Steinernema feltiae for the control of the leafminers Liriomyza huidobrensis, Liriomyza bryoniae and Chromatomyia syngenesiae. Annals of Applied Biology, 127(2):329-341; 29 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/