Myzus persicae (green peach aphid)
Index
- Pictures
- Identity
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Description
- Distribution
- Distribution Table
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- Symptoms
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Species Vectored
- Biology and Ecology
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Impact
- Threatened Species
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Diagnosis
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- References
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.
Generate reportPictures
Top of pageIdentity
Top of pagePreferred Scientific Name
- Myzus persicae Sulzer (1776)
Preferred Common Name
- green peach aphid
Other Scientific Names
- Aphis convolvuli Kaltenbach, 1843
- Aphis cynoglossi Walker, 1848
- Aphis derelicta Walker, 1849
- Aphis dianthi Schrank, 1801
- Aphis dubia Curtis, 1842
- Aphis egressa Walker, 1849
- Aphis malvae Mosl., 1841
- Aphis persicae Sulzer, 1776
- Aphis persiciphila
- Aphis persola Walker, 1848
- Aphis rapae Curtis, 1842
- Aphis redundans Walker, 1849 sec. Laing, 1925
- Aphis suffragans Walker, 1848
- Aphis tuberoscellae
- Aphis vastator
- Aphis vulgaris Kyber, 1815 (sec. Walker)
- Aulacorthum convolvuli
- Myzodes persicae (Sulzer)
- Myzodes tabaci Mordvilko, 1914
- Myzoides persicae
- Myzus dianthi (Schrank)
- Myzus malvae Oestl., 1886 (sec. Theob.)
- Myzus nicotianae Blackman
- Myzus pergandei Sanders, 1901 sec. Patch
- Myzus persicae var. cerastii Theobald
- Myzus persicae var. sanguisorbella Theobald, 1926
- Nectarosiphon persicae (Sulzer)
- Phorodon cynoglossi Williams, 1891 sec. Davis, 1911
- Phorodon persicae (Sulzer)
- Rhopalosiphum betae Theobald, 1913
- Rhopalosiphum calthae Koch, 1854
- Rhopalosiphum dianthi
- Rhopalosiphum lactucellum
- Rhopalosiphum lactucellum Theobald, 1915
- Rhopalosiphum persicae
- Rhopalosiphum solani Theobald, 1912 nonKalt, 1843
- Rhopalosiphum tuberosellae Theobald, 1922
- Rhopalosiphum tulipae Thos., 1879 sec. Davis, 1911
- Siphonophora achyrantes Mon., 1879
- Siphonophora nasturtii Koch, 1855
International Common Names
- English: cabbage aphid; green sesame aphid; peach aphid; peach curl aphid; peach-potato aphid; potato aphid; tobacco aphid
- Spanish: afido amarillo del tabaco; afido verde; afido verdoso; pulgón verde; pulgón verde del melocotonero
- French: puceron des carottes; puceron gris du pecher; puceron vert du pêcher
- Portuguese: pulgao verde do pessegueiro
Local Common Names
- Argentina: pulgón verde del duraznero
- Brazil: pulgao verde da batatinha
- Denmark: ferskenbladlus
- Dominican Republic: melaito; melaito verde
- Finland: persikkakirva; perunakirva
- Germany: Bocksdorn-Blattlaus; Gruene Pfirsichblattlaus; Nelken-Blattlaus
- Israel: knimat haafarsek
- Italy: afide verde del pesco
- Japan: momoaka-aburamusi
- Netherlands: Groene Perzikbladluis; Groene Tabaksluis
- Norway: ferskenbladlus
- Sweden: persikbladlus
- Turkey: seftali yaprak biti
EPPO code
- MYZUPE (Myzus persicae)
- RHOPDI (Rhopalosiphum dianthi)
Taxonomic Tree
Top of page- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Hemiptera
- Suborder: Sternorrhyncha
- Unknown: Aphidoidea
- Family: Aphididae
- Genus: Myzus
- Species: Myzus persicae
Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Top of pageMyzus persicae was first described by Sulzer in 1776 as Aphis persicae. Its numerous synonyms are listed by Börner (1952) and Remaudiere and Remaudiere (1997) and taxonomy is reviewed by Blackman and Paterson (1986) and Blackman (1986). The name M. persicae as applied here refers to a complex of sibling species and host plant races, including the tobacco-adapted form, described by Blackman (1986) as a separate species (M. nicotanae); this needs to be borne in mind when designing control strategies.
Description
Top of page
Adult wingless parthenogenetic females are oval-bodied, 1.2-2.1 mm in body length, of very variable colour; whitish green, pale yellow green, grey green, mid-green, dark green, pink or red. The tobacco form (nicotianae) varies even more and can also be bright yellow, or almost black. Apart from genetically determined colour variation, any one genotype will be more deeply pigmented green or magenta in cold conditions. Immature stages are quite shiny, but adults are less so. Winged morphs have a black central dorsal patch on the abdomen. Immatures of the winged females are often pink or red, especially in autumn populations, and immature males are yellowish (Blackman and Eastop, 1985).
Distinguishing characters of the M. persicae group with a hand lens or under the microscope are the convergent inner faces of the antennal tubercles in dorsal view, and the very slightly clavate siphunculi, which are usually dark-tipped and about as long as the terminal process of the antenna.
M. persicae alate virginoparae from populations derived from overwintering eggs on Prunus have cylindrical cornicles, whereas those from populations derived from overwintering virginoparae are clavate.
Distribution
Top of pageM. persicae is probably of Asian origin, like its primary host plant (Prunus persica) but now occurs everywhere in the world except where there are extremes of temperature or humidity.
Distribution Table
Top of pageThe distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
Last updated: 29 Apr 2022Continent/Country/Region | Distribution | Last Reported | Origin | First Reported | Invasive | Reference | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Africa |
|||||||
Algeria | Present | ||||||
Angola | Present | ||||||
Benin | Present | ||||||
Burundi | Present | ||||||
Cameroon | Present | ||||||
Central African Republic | Present | ||||||
Congo, Democratic Republic of the | Present | ||||||
Congo, Republic of the | Present | ||||||
Côte d'Ivoire | Present | ||||||
Egypt | Present | ||||||
Ethiopia | Present | ||||||
Ghana | Present | ||||||
Kenya | Present | ||||||
Libya | Present | ||||||
Madagascar | Present | ||||||
Malawi | Present | ||||||
Mauritius | Present | ||||||
Morocco | Present | ||||||
Mozambique | Present | ||||||
Nigeria | Present | ||||||
Réunion | Present | ||||||
Rwanda | Present | ||||||
Saint Helena | Present | ||||||
Seychelles | Present | ||||||
Sierra Leone | Present | ||||||
South Africa | Present | ||||||
Sudan | Present | ||||||
Tanzania | Present | ||||||
Tunisia | Present | ||||||
Uganda | Present | ||||||
Zambia | Present | ||||||
Zimbabwe | Present | ||||||
Asia |
|||||||
Afghanistan | Present | ||||||
Armenia | Present | ||||||
Azerbaijan | Present | ||||||
Bangladesh | Present | ||||||
Bhutan | Present | ||||||
Cambodia | Present | ||||||
China | Present | ||||||
-Beijing | Present | ||||||
-Fujian | Present | ||||||
-Gansu | Present | ||||||
-Guangdong | Present | ||||||
-Guizhou | Present | ||||||
-Hebei | Present | ||||||
-Heilongjiang | Present | ||||||
-Henan | Present | ||||||
-Hubei | Present | ||||||
-Hunan | Present | ||||||
-Jiangsu | Present | ||||||
-Liaoning | Present | ||||||
-Shaanxi | Present | ||||||
-Shandong | Present | ||||||
-Shanghai | Present | ||||||
-Sichuan | Present | ||||||
-Xinjiang | Present | ||||||
-Yunnan | Present | ||||||
-Zhejiang | Present | ||||||
Georgia | Present | ||||||
Hong Kong | Present | ||||||
India | Present, Widespread | ||||||
-Andhra Pradesh | Present | ||||||
-Bihar | Present | Original citation: Ram and Kishore Parihar (2002) | |||||
-Chhattisgarh | Present | ||||||
-Gujarat | Present | ||||||
-Haryana | Present | ||||||
-Himachal Pradesh | Present | ||||||
-Jammu and Kashmir | Present | ||||||
-Karnataka | Present | ||||||
-Madhya Pradesh | Present | ||||||
-Maharashtra | Present | ||||||
-Manipur | Present | ||||||
-Odisha | Present | ||||||
-Punjab | Present | ||||||
-Rajasthan | Present | ||||||
-Sikkim | Present | ||||||
-Tamil Nadu | Present | ||||||
-Uttar Pradesh | Present | ||||||
-Uttarakhand | Present | ||||||
-West Bengal | Present | ||||||
Indonesia | Present | ||||||
-Java | Present | ||||||
-Sumatra | Present | ||||||
Iran | Present | ||||||
Iraq | Present | ||||||
Israel | Present | ||||||
Japan | Present | ||||||
-Hokkaido | Present | ||||||
-Honshu | Present | ||||||
-Kyushu | Present | ||||||
-Ryukyu Islands | Present | ||||||
-Shikoku | Present | ||||||
Jordan | Present | ||||||
Kazakhstan | Present | ||||||
Kyrgyzstan | Present | ||||||
Laos | Present | ||||||
Lebanon | Present | ||||||
Malaysia | Present | ||||||
Mongolia | Present | ||||||
Myanmar | Present | ||||||
Nepal | Present | ||||||
North Korea | Present | ||||||
Pakistan | Present | ||||||
Palestine | |||||||
-Gaza Strip | Present | ||||||
Philippines | Present | ||||||
Saudi Arabia | Present | ||||||
Singapore | Present | ||||||
South Korea | Present | ||||||
Sri Lanka | Present | ||||||
Syria | Present | ||||||
Taiwan | Present, Widespread | ||||||
Thailand | Present | ||||||
Turkey | Present | ||||||
Turkmenistan | Present | ||||||
Uzbekistan | Present | ||||||
Vietnam | Present | ||||||
Yemen | Present | ||||||
Europe |
|||||||
Albania | Present | ||||||
Austria | Present | ||||||
Belarus | Present | ||||||
Belgium | Present | ||||||
Bosnia and Herzegovina | Present | ||||||
Bulgaria | Present | ||||||
Croatia | Present | ||||||
Cyprus | Present, Widespread | ||||||
Czechia | Present | ||||||
Czechoslovakia | Present | ||||||
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia | Present | ||||||
Denmark | Present, Widespread | ||||||
Finland | Present | ||||||
France | Present, Widespread | ||||||
Germany | Present, Widespread | ||||||
Gibraltar | Present | ||||||
Greece | Present | ||||||
Hungary | Present | ||||||
Ireland | Present | ||||||
Italy | Present | ||||||
Latvia | Present | ||||||
Lithuania | Present | Introduced | First reported: 1980 - 2000 | ||||
Malta | Present | Introduced | 1994 | ||||
Moldova | Present | ||||||
Montenegro | Present | ||||||
Netherlands | Present | ||||||
North Macedonia | Present | ||||||
Norway | Present | ||||||
Poland | Present | ||||||
Portugal | Present | Introduced | First reported: 1936 - 1949 | ||||
-Azores | Present | ||||||
-Madeira | Present | Introduced | First reported: 1955 - 1966 | ||||
Romania | Present | ||||||
Russia | Present | Present based on regional distribution. | |||||
-Central Russia | Present | ||||||
-Russia (Europe) | Present | ||||||
-Russian Far East | Present | ||||||
Serbia | Present | ||||||
Slovakia | Present | ||||||
Slovenia | Present | ||||||
Spain | Present, Widespread | ||||||
-Balearic Islands | Present | ||||||
-Canary Islands | Present | ||||||
Sweden | Present | Introduced | 1855 | ||||
Switzerland | Present, Widespread | ||||||
Ukraine | Present | ||||||
United Kingdom | Present, Widespread | ||||||
-England | Present | ||||||
-Scotland | Present | ||||||
-Wales | Present | ||||||
North America |
|||||||
Bahamas | Present | ||||||
Barbados | Present | ||||||
Bermuda | Present | ||||||
Canada | Present, Widespread | ||||||
-Alberta | Present | ||||||
-British Columbia | Present | ||||||
-Manitoba | Present | ||||||
-New Brunswick | Present | ||||||
-Newfoundland and Labrador | Present | ||||||
-Nova Scotia | Present | ||||||
-Ontario | Present | ||||||
-Prince Edward Island | Present | ||||||
-Quebec | Present | ||||||
-Saskatchewan | Present | ||||||
Costa Rica | Present | ||||||
Cuba | Present | ||||||
Dominican Republic | Present | ||||||
El Salvador | Present | ||||||
Guatemala | Present | ||||||
Honduras | Present | ||||||
Jamaica | Present | ||||||
Mexico | Present | ||||||
Panama | Present | ||||||
Puerto Rico | Present | ||||||
United States | Present | Present based on regional distribution. | |||||
-Arizona | Present | ||||||
-Arkansas | Present | ||||||
-California | Present | ||||||
-Colorado | Present | ||||||
-Connecticut | Present | ||||||
-Delaware | Present | ||||||
-Florida | Present | ||||||
-Georgia | Present | ||||||
-Hawaii | Present | ||||||
-Idaho | Present | ||||||
-Illinois | Present | ||||||
-Indiana | Present | ||||||
-Iowa | Present | ||||||
-Kansas | Present | ||||||
-Kentucky | Present | ||||||
-Louisiana | Present | ||||||
-Maine | Present | ||||||
-Maryland | Present | ||||||
-Massachusetts | Present | ||||||
-Michigan | Present | ||||||
-Minnesota | Present | ||||||
-Mississippi | Present | ||||||
-Missouri | Present | ||||||
-Montana | Present | ||||||
-Nebraska | Present | ||||||
-Nevada | Present | ||||||
-New Jersey | Present | ||||||
-New Mexico | Present | ||||||
-New York | Present | ||||||
-North Carolina | Present | ||||||
-North Dakota | Present | ||||||
-Ohio | Present | ||||||
-Oklahoma | Present | ||||||
-Oregon | Present | ||||||
-Pennsylvania | Present | ||||||
-South Carolina | Present | ||||||
-Tennessee | Present | ||||||
-Texas | Present | ||||||
-Utah | Present | ||||||
-Virginia | Present | ||||||
-Washington | Present | ||||||
-West Virginia | Present | ||||||
-Wisconsin | Present | ||||||
Oceania |
|||||||
Australia | Present | Present based on regional distribution. | |||||
-New South Wales | Present | ||||||
-Northern Territory | Present | ||||||
-Queensland | Present | ||||||
-South Australia | Present | ||||||
-Tasmania | Present | ||||||
-Victoria | Present | ||||||
-Western Australia | Present | ||||||
Fiji | Present | ||||||
New Caledonia | Present | ||||||
New Zealand | Present | Introduced | 1921 | ||||
Northern Mariana Islands | Present | ||||||
Solomon Islands | Present | ||||||
Tonga | Present | ||||||
South America |
|||||||
Argentina | Present, Widespread | ||||||
Bolivia | Present | ||||||
Brazil | Present, Widespread | ||||||
-Bahia | Present | Original citation: Sigaran Tarrago et al., 1994 | |||||
-Espirito Santo | Present | ||||||
-Mato Grosso | Present | ||||||
-Minas Gerais | Present | ||||||
-Parana | Present | ||||||
-Rio de Janeiro | Present | ||||||
-Rio Grande do Sul | Present | ||||||
-Santa Catarina | Present | ||||||
-Sao Paulo | Present | ||||||
Chile | Present | Introduced | First reported: Before 1965 | ||||
-Easter Island | Present | ||||||
Colombia | Present | ||||||
Ecuador | Present | ||||||
Peru | Present | ||||||
Suriname | Present | ||||||
Uruguay | Present | ||||||
Venezuela | Present |
Risk of Introduction
Top of pageHosts/Species Affected
Top of page
The winter (primary) host of M. persicae is almost invariably Prunus persica (peach), including var. nectarina; sometimes P. nigra in USA, and possibly P. tenella, P. nana, P. serotina, P. americana and peach-almond hybrids. It is not clear whether the sexual part of the life-cycle is completed on species other than P. persica and P. nigra.
M. persicae is highly polyphagous on summer hosts, which are in over 40 different families, including Brassicaceae, Solanaceae, Poaceae, Leguminosae, Cyperaceae, Convolvulaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Compositae, Cucurbitaceae and Umbelliferae. Summer hosts include many economically important plants.
Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
Top of pageSymptoms
Top of page
Effect of infestation depends greatly on host plant and transmitted viruses. Spring populations on peach cause severe leaf curl and shoot distortion. In potato, PLRV symptoms are leaf rolling and tuber stem necrosis. In sugarbeet, beet yellows viruses (BYV, BYDV, BWYV) cause yellowing in older leaves, chlorotic spotting, and thickening of the leaves, which become leathery and brittle.
On many crop plants (for example, potato, brassicas, sugarbeet) M. persicae only occurs at low densities, particularly on older leaves. Large colonies of the tobacco form (nicotianae) occur on growing stems and younger leaves.
List of Symptoms/Signs
Top of pageSign | Life Stages | Type |
---|---|---|
Growing point / external feeding | ||
Inflorescence / external feeding | ||
Leaves / abnormal colours | ||
Leaves / abnormal patterns | ||
Leaves / honeydew or sooty mould | ||
Leaves / honeydew or sooty mould | ||
Leaves / honeydew or sooty mould | ||
Leaves / leaves rolled or folded | ||
Leaves / necrotic areas | ||
Leaves / necrotic areas | ||
Stems / external feeding | ||
Whole plant / dwarfing | ||
Whole plant / wilt |
Species Vectored
Top of pageBean common mosaic necrosis virus
Bean common mosaic virus (common mosaic of beans)
Bean leafroll virus (pea leafroll virus)
Bean yellow mosaic virus (bean yellow mosaic)
Beet mild yellowing virus (beet mild yellowing)
Beet mosaic virus (spinach mosaic virus)
Beet western yellows virus (turnip (mild) yellows)
Beet yellows virus (beet yellows)
Carnation latent virus
Cauliflower mosaic virus (cauliflower mosaic)
Clover yellow vein virus (CYVV)
Cowpea aphid-borne mosaic virus
Cucumber mosaic virus (cucumber mosaic)
Cucurbit aphid-borne yellows virus (Cucurbit aphid-borne yellows)
East Asian Passiflora virus
Hop mosaic virus
Lettuce mosaic virus (lettuce mosaic)
Maize dwarf mosaic virus (dwarf mosaic of maize)
Onion yellow dwarf virus (onion yellow dwarf)
Papaya ringspot virus
Passion fruit woodiness virus (passionfruit woodiness disease)
Pea enation mosaic virus-1 (pea virus 1)
Peanut mottle virus (peanut mottle)
Peanut stripe virus (groundnut stripe disease)
Peanut stunt virus (peanut stunt)
Pepper veinal mottle virus
Plum pox virus (sharka)
Potato leafroll virus
Potato virus S
Potato virus Y (potato mottle)
Red clover vein mosaic virus
Soybean mosaic virus (soybean mosaic)
Sugarcane mosaic virus (sugarcane mosaic)
Tobacco etch virus (tobacco etch)
Tobacco vein distorting virus
Tobacco vein mottling virus
Tobacco yellow net virus
Tuberose mild mottle virus (tuberose mild mottle virus)
Tulip breaking virus
Turnip mosaic virus (cabbage A virus mosaic)
Watermelon mosaic virus (watermelon mosaic)
Zucchini yellow mosaic virus
Biology and Ecology
Top of pageM. persicae is heteroecious holocyclic (host alternating, with sexual reproduction during part of life-cycle) between Prunus (usually peach) and summer host plants, but anholocyclic on secondary (summer) hosts in many parts of the world where peach is absent, and where a mild climate permits active stages to survive throughout the winter. It is usually anholocyclic in tropics and sub-tropics, with exceptions: for example, Ghosh and Verma (1990) reported apterous oviparous females of M. persicae for the first time from India, collected on Prunus persica. Blackman (1974) discussed the life-cycle variability of M. persicae on a worldwide basis.
For host-alternating populations, in spring, winged female emigrants (alate virginoparae) produced from the fundatrices migrate to summer hosts. A series of generations of wingless (apterous) and alate virginoparae are produced viviparously by thelytokous (all-female) parthenogenesis. These develop on summer hosts until reduced daylength (critical photoperiod between 12.5 and 14 hours in Europe), in conjunction with temperature below a certain threshold, induces autumn migrants (gynoparae) which migrate back to peach. Gynoparae will attempt to colonize a range of trees and shrubs, but the sexual part of the cycle is only completed on Prunus persica and close relatives. Gynoparae produce oviparae (mating females) that feed and develop on peach leaves. Males are produced after gynoparae (1 month later in a study from Italy) on the summer hosts, and migrate independently to peach, where they mate with the oviparae, which by then have become adult. Males appear to be attracted by sex pheromone released by sexual females, and are also attracted to the odour of the winter host (Tamaki et al., 1970). Oviparae lay 4-13 eggs, usually in crevices around and in axillary buds. Up to 20,000 eggs may occur per P. persica tree, although 4000 is around average, with large variation between trees (van Emden et al., 1969). The eggs overwinter in diapause, requiring a period of chilling to develop, and are extremely cold resistant (surviving temperatures as low as -46°C). Hatching coincides with swelling of flower buds, which provide food for first fundatrices. High fundatrix mortality may occur (van Emden et al., 1969). Fundatrigeniae feed on opened buds, flowers and soft shoots of the peach tree. Winged female emigrants are produced in the second generation after the fundatrix, but production of wingless females may continue for several generations, with increasing numbers of emigrants being produced as the nutritional suitability of the peach tree declines.
On the summer hosts, populations tend to be dispersed. M. persicae tends to feed on older senescing leaves, often along the leaf veins. van Emden et al. (1969) described how a range of host-plant variables affected aphid development and fecundity. Plant nutrition is a factor in the induction of winged forms, along with temperature, but there is also a strong genetic component. In laboratory experiments, low temperature promoted, while high temperature tended to suppress, the development of winged forms. Kuo (1991) described development and reproduction on radishes and potatoes at six constant temperatures (5-30°C) in the laboratory. M. persicae is relatively cold resistant. Howling et al. (1994) described mortality of aphids at various cold temperatures and their results suggested that an acclimatized overwintering population of M. persicae would persist without significant mortality after a period of 7-10 days with -5°C frosts each night.
Between six and eight generations developed on sugar-beet plants during the growing season in the Czech Republic, wheras 10-25 generations a year were possible on potatoes in southwestern USA. Wingless parthenogenetic females produce 30-80 progeny each. Higher growth rates have been observed on virus-infested plants. Winged females alight fairly indiscriminately on summer hosts, as expected for a polyphagous species, although they have a landing preference on yellow and yellow-green surfaces. Decreased departure rates account for accumulation on favoured hosts.
M. persicae has 2n=12 chromosomes normally, but a form heterozygous for a chromosomal translocation is worldwide and common (Blackman et al., 1978). M. persicae is a highly variable species; strains, races and biotypes have been distinguished by morphology, colour, biology, host-plant preference, ability to transmit viruses and insecticide resistance (van Emden et al., 1969). A distinct form of M. persicae (=nicotianae Blackman) occurs throughout most of the world on tobacco (Blackman, 1986; Takada and Tamura, 1987). Hybridisation in a region where the two forms both have a sexual phase on peach may account for the fact that both now have the same genes for insecticide resistance (Field et al., 1994). Remaudiere et al. (1991) reported a winged viviparous albino of M. persicae from South America.
The literature on M. persicae is probably larger than for any other aphid species. Major reviews of this aphid include those by van Emden et al. (1969) and Mackauer and Way (1976).
Natural enemies
Top of pageNatural enemy | Type | Life stages | Specificity | References | Biological control in | Biological control on |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Acridotheres tristis | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Adalia bipunctata | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Finland; France | |||
Agonum dorsale | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Allothrombium pulvinus | Parasite | |||||
Alloxysta discreta | Parasite | |||||
Anisosticta novemdecimpunctata | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Anomalochrysa maclachlani | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Anthocoris gallarumulmi | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Anthocoris nemorum | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Anthocoris sibiricus | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Aphelinus abdominalis | Parasite | Arthropods|Nymphs | France | |||
Aphelinus asychis | Parasite | Arthropods|Nymphs | France | |||
Aphelinus mali | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Aphelinus semiflavus | Parasite | Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Aphidencyrtus aphidivorus | Parasite | |||||
Aphidius colemani | Parasite | Arthropods|Nymphs | Tamil Nadu | |||
Aphidius ervi | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Chile; Morocco | peaches; potatoes | ||
Aphidius funebris | Parasite | |||||
Aphidius gifuensis | Parasite | Arthropods|Nymphs | Yunnan | |||
Aphidius matricariae | Parasite | Arthropods|Nymphs | France; Poland; Romania; UK; USA; USSR | peaches | ||
Aphidius nigripes | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Aphidius picipes | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Aphidius rhopalosiphi | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Chile | |||
Aphidius rosae | Parasite | |||||
Aphidius similis | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Aphidius sonchi | Parasite | |||||
Aphidius urticae | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Aphidius uzbekistanicus | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Chile | |||
Aphidoletes aphidimyza | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Heilongjiang; Russia; USSR | |||
Asaphes lucens | Parasite | |||||
Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki | Pathogen | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Bacillus thuringiensis thuringiensis | Pathogen | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Beauveria bassiana | Pathogen | |||||
Bembidion quadrimaculatum | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Brinckochrysa scelestes | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Brumoides suturalis | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | India | Cuminum cyminum | ||
Carabidae | Predator | Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Cheilomenes sexmaculata | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Andhra Pradesh; India | |||
Chrysopa chrysops | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Chrysopa formosa | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Bulgaria; France | |||
Chrysopa nigricornis | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Chrysopa pallens | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Bulgaria | |||
Chrysopa quadripunctata | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Chrysopa slossonae | Predator | |||||
Chrysoperla carnea | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Bulgaria; Finland; Moldova; USSR | tobacco | ||
Chrysoperla downesi | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Chrysoperla harrisii | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Bulgaria;France;Poland | tobacco | ||
Chrysoperla sinica | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Coccinella hieroglyphica | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Coccinella quinquepunctata | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Coccinella septempunctata | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Bulgaria; Finland; India; Maine; New York | Cuminum cyminum; tobacco | ||
Coccinella septempunctata brucki | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Coccinella transversalis | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | India | aubergines | ||
Coccinella transversoguttata | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Maine | |||
Coleomegilla maculata | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Coleomegilla maculata cubensis | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Conidiobolus coronatus | Pathogen | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Conidiobolus obscurus | Pathogen | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | USA; Maine | potatoes | ||
Conidiobolus thromboides | Pathogen | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Cotesia rubecula | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Cycloneda limbifer | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Deraeocoris flavilinea | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Deraeocoris pallens | Predator | |||||
Diaeretiella rapae | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Morocco; Poland | potatoes | ||
Dicyphus errans | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Endaphis aphidimyza | Predator | |||||
Entomophaga aphidis | Pathogen | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Entomophaga chromaphidis | Pathogen | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Ephedrus californicus | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Ephedrus cerasicola | Parasite | Arthropods|Nymphs | Norway | Capsicum annuum | ||
Ephedrus persicae | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Ephedrus plagiator | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | China; Yunnan | radishes | ||
Episyrphus alternans | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Episyrphus balteatus | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Bulgaria; India | potatoes; tobacco | ||
Eriopis connexa | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Erynia neoaphidis | Pathogen | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Erynia nouryi | Pathogen | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Erynia phalloides | Pathogen | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Erynia radicans | Pathogen | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Eupeodes confrater | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | India; Andhra Pradesh; India; Punjab | mustard; tobacco | ||
Eupeodes corollae | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Eupeodes latilunulatus | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | India; Punjab | mustard | ||
Forficula decipiens | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Fusarium pallidoroseum | Pathogen | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | India; Tamil Nadu | Capsicum annuum; kohlrabi | ||
Geocoris bullatus | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Glomerella cingulata | Pathogen | Adults; Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Harmonia axyridis | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Harmonia conformis | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Harmonia dimidiata | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | India | aubergines | ||
Hemerobius pacificus | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Hippodamia convergens | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | France | |||
Hippodamia undecimnotata | ||||||
Hippodamia variegata | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Bulgaria; India | Cuminum cyminum; tobacco | ||
Ischiodon aegyptius | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Ischiodon scutellaris | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | India; India; Andhra Pradesh; India; Punjab | mustard; potatoes; tobacco | ||
Jalysus wickhami | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Lasiochalcidia erythropus | Parasite | |||||
Lecanicillium lecanii | Pathogen | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | UK | Brassica | ||
Lipolexis scutellaris | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Lysiphlebia mirzai | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Lysiphlebus confusus | Parasite | |||||
Lysiphlebus delhiensis | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Lysiphlebus fabarum | Parasite | |||||
Lysiphlebus testaceipes | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Macrolophus caliginosus | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Macrolophus caluginosus | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Macrolophus nubilus | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Mallada boninensis | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | India; Andhra Pradesh | tobacco | ||
Melanostoma fasciatum | Predator | |||||
Micraspis discolor | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Micraspis vincta | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | India; Andhra Pradesh | tobacco | ||
Micromus angulatus | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Micromus pusillus | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Micromus tasmaniae | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Nabis alternatus | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Neoephedrus kalimpongensis | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Nineta pallida | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Orius insidiosus | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Orius minutus | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | China | apples; Astragalus sinicus | ||
Orius sauteri | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Orius vicinus | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Pandora neoaphidis | Pathogen | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Phalangium opilio | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Podisus maculiventris | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Polistes crinitus americanus | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Praon myzophagum | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Praon unicum | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | USA; Washington | peaches | ||
Praon volucre | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Morocco | potatoes | ||
Propylea quatuordecimpunctata | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | France | aubergines | ||
Propylea quatuordecimpunctata | ||||||
Pterostichus melanarius | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Scaeva latimaculata | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | India; Punjab | mustard | ||
Scaeva pyrastri | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Bulgaria | tobacco | ||
Scymnodes lividigaster | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Scymnus bicolor | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Scymnus ferrugatus | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Scymnus marginicollis | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Scymnus morelleti | ||||||
Scymnus posticalis | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Sphaerophoria indiana | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | India; Punjab | mustard | ||
Synharmonia lyncea | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Syrphus ribesii | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Tjederina gracilis | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Toxares deltiger | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Toxares zakai | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Trioxys angelicae | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Trioxys indicus | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Trioxys similis | Parasite | Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Trioxys tucumanus | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Verticillium lamellicola | Pathogen | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Wesmaelius subnebulosus | Predator | |||||
Zele chlorophthalma | Parasite | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs |
Notes on Natural Enemies
Top of page
Aphid natural enemies tend to be habitat-specific rather than host-specific, so the important natural enemies attacking particular aphid pests on crops tend to vary according to the crop, the circumstances under which it is grown and the climate. This is particularly true of aphid pests attacking a range of different crops over large geographical areas. Besides, many parasitoids are members of species complexes, morphologically very similar but with different host preferences and geographical distributions. Those in the list of natural enermies are only a selection of species that have been considered as important by investigators and should not be taken as definitive.
M. persicae is attacked by over 30 species of primary parasitoid. Most also attack a range of other aphid species, although some, for example, Trioxys similis, appear host-specific. T. angelicae is a parasitoid on Prunus only. M. persicae is the preferred host for Aphidius matricariae and Aphelinus semiflavus in the USA. Aphidius colemani is also an important natural enemy in North and South America. The second and third aphid nymphal instars are usually preferred by ovipositing parasites (Hågvar and Hofsvang, 1991) with older nymphs usually avoided as they result in small parasite adults emerging which leave few offspring; though Aphidius gifuensis prefers third and fourth instars (van Emden et al., 1969). Parasites often use aphid honeydew as a host-finding cue (Hågvar and Hofsvang, 1991).
Coccinellids, adults and larvae, are important predators worldwide, particularly Adonia spp., Coccinella spp., Hippodamia spp. and Scymnus spp. Coccinella septempunctata and Chilomese sexmaculata were the most abundant predators in potatoes, and other crops, in India (for example, Raj, 1989; Gupta and Yadava, 1989). Important syrphid larvae predators worldwide include Episyrphus balteatus, Ischiodon scutellaris, Metasyrphus corollae and Scaeva pyrastri. Kumar et al. (1987) provided a key for syrphid larvae that prey on M. persicae in India.
Van Emden et al. (1969) provided an extensive list of known natural enemies of M. persicae, which has been updated from the literature to 1996. Halima et al. (1993) described parasites and predators attacking M. persicae in Tunisia, and Nakata (1995) described fluctuations of aphids and their natural enemies on potato in Japan. In India, the common myna bird (Acridotheres tristis) was recorded preying on M. persicae in cumin (Gupta and Yadava, 1989).
Kish et al. (1994) described infestation of M. persicae by Verticillium lecanii on peach leaves, and Beauveria bassiana and Conidiobolus sp. on potatoes; while aphids collected from weeds growing in and near a peach orchard were infected with Entomophaga chromaphidis, Conidiobolus obscurus and V. lecanii. Aphids on potatoes and non-solanaceous hosts in Idaho, USA, were infected with Pandora neoaphidis, Chromaphidis and Conidiobolus spp. (Kish et al., 1994). Li et al. (1992) described Entomophthorales in China. Pathogenicity of these fungi is greatest when humidity is high.
Impact
Top of pageM. persicae is the most important aphid virus vector. It has been shown to transmit well over 100 plant virus diseases, in about 30 different families, including many major crops. Persistent viruses transmitted include Beet western yellows virus, Beet yellows virus, Beet mild yellowing virus, Pea enation mosaic virus, Bean leaf roll virus, Potato leaf roll virus and several viruses of tobacco (for example, Tobacco vein-distorting virus, Tobacco yellow net virus). Many more are transmitted by the non-persistent method, including Potato virus Y, Cucumber mosaic virus, Clover yellow vein virus, Alfalfa mosaic virus, Pepper veinal mottle virus, Plum pox virus, Lettuce mosaic virus and Tobacco vein mottling virus.
Direct feeding damage can result in stunting and reduced root weight, but populations on most crops do not reach levels causing obvious symptoms such as chlorosis or leaf curling, and the production of copious honeydew with associated sooty mould. However, significant yield losses can arise from direct damage on potatoes (Sexson et al., 2005) and visible distortion of leaves can occur on peach in the spring as well as on peppers and flower crops in greenhouses.
M. persicae is a major pest everywhere potatoes are grown. It is the most important vector of Potato leafroll virus (PLRV), which causes leaf roll and tuber rot necrosis. Seed potatoes have low tolerance for PLRV and low aphid populations can be very damaging.
Yield losses in sugarbeet due to beet yellows are more serious if infection occurs early in the season and can be up to 30-50%, with an increase also in the impurities present in the harvested sugar.
On peach (the primary host) the aphid causes twisting of the young leaves and on nectarines, pitting on and discoloration of the young fruits (Barbagallo et al., 2007).
Threatened Species
Top of pageThreatened Species | Conservation Status | Where Threatened | Mechanism | References | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Asclepias meadii (Mead's milkweed) | NatureServe; USA ESA listing as threatened species | Illinois; Iowa; Kansas | Herbivory/grazing/browsing | US Fish and Wildlife Service (2003) |
Diagnosis
Top of pageMethods have been developed for diagnosing economically important characteristics of field-collected aphids. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is widely used to detect plant viruses carried by M. persicae (for example, Carlebach et al., 1982; Reinhardt et al., 1988). Levels of insecticide resistance in individual aphids can be estimated from their esterase content measured by immunoassay, and DNA diagnostic methods for resistant M. persicae have also been developed (Field et al., 1997).
Detection and Inspection
Top of page
On Prunus persica, inspect for curled leaves, in which colonies develop in early spring.
Monitoring is important in field crops, but M. persicae transmits viruses of crops such as sugar beet and potato at low densities, and is therefore difficult to detect on the crop before the damage is done. Suction and yellow traps are the most efficient way to detect first migration of winged aphids into the crop. Networks of suction traps have been developed to monitor migrating aphids, for example, the Rothamsted Insect Survey in the UK and AGRAPHID in France (Hulle et al., 1987), as part of the 'Euraphid' forecasting system in European Union countries. Much effort has been expended on developing forecasting methods, for example for sugarbeet (Harrington et al., 1989). Appropriate applications of insecticides are often based on monitoring data. Insecticide application in sugar beet against M. persicae is only necessary when aphids are carrying yellows viruses. Vertical nets placed downwind of fields of infected potato plants can be used to quantify the proportion of M. persicae carrying virus (diagnosed by use of ELISA; see Diagnosis).
Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
Top of pageM. persicae is a member of a group of closely related and very similar-looking species in the subgenus Nectarosiphon. Some of these are specific to particular host plants and confined to Europe; see Blackman and Paterson (1986) for a key to these. Others are more widely distributed: Myzus certus is a red species that restricts its feeding to Caryophyllaceae and Violaceae, and occurs in Europe and North America. This species does not host-alternate to peach; a sexual generation, with wingless males, can occur on Caryophyllaceae. Myzus dianthicola is a deep yellow-green colour and is only known from carnations (Dianthus) causing chlorotic patches on the leaves. It is recorded from USA, Europe and New Zealand, and has no sexual phase.
Myzus antirrhinii is mid-green to dark grey green and rather polyphagous. It forms dense colonies on certain host plants, for example, Buddleja, Antirrhinum and Pittosporum, but it sometimes also occurs on field crops. Production of winged morphs is rather sporadic, and it has no sexual phase. M. antirrhinii is known from western USA and Canada, Europe and Australia.
Myzus nicotianae occurs in most parts of the world where tobacco is grown. It has slight but consistent morphological differences from M. persicae and Blackman (1986) gives linear discriminant functions for winged and wingless females, but the two taxa can only be reliably separated using multivariate morphometrics.
M. nicotianae is anholocyclic (permanently parthenogenetic) almost everywhere, but has a sexual phase on peach in some parts of the world (for example, northern Greece) and some hybridization with M. persicae may occur, which would account for the fact that it has the same genes for insecticide resistance as M. persicae (Field et al., 1994), and the same resistance-linked chromosomal translocation. Because the extent of gene flow between the two taxa is still uncertain, and because the two are confused in the literature, data for M. nicotianae is here included in the treatment of M. persicae.
Electrophoretic techniques can distinguish between M. persicae and M. antirrhinii, based on patterns of esterases (Ffrench-Constant et al., 1988; Blackman and Spence, 1992).
Two other widely distributed and polyphagous pest species are less closely related but liable to confusion with M. persicae: the shallot aphid, Myzus ascalonicus, which is straw-coloured with contrastingly black tips to antennae and legs, and Myzus cymbalariae, which is yellowish brown to dark reddish brown. Both these species have siphunculi much shorter than those of M. persicae. The preferred hosts of both species are in Alliaceae and Caryophyllaceae.
Prevention and Control
Top of pageDue to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.
Chemical Control
As M. persicae is mainly important as a virus vector, a high level of control as provided by insecticides is often required. However, insecticides are relatively ineffective for non-persistent viruses, because transmission by the aphid occurs in just a few seconds. Moreover, there are varied restrictions on active ingredients in different parts of the world, and further restrictions on formulation, method of application, crop and time of year. Additionally, resistance to most groups of insecticides that defeats their use has appeared in many places (Foster et al., 2007; Bass et al., 2014). The aphid has several mechanisms conferring resistance primarily to different groups of insecticides; amplification of carboxylesterase for organophosphate insecticides, insensitive target site (MACE) against dimethyl carbamates, knock-down resistance (kdr and super-kdr) against pyrethroids and most recently a mechanism known as Nic-R++ against neonicotinoids (Bass et al., 2011). Other insecticides such as pymetrozine and flonicamid may therefore be required to obtain adequate control of the aphid, and diamide insecticides should become available in the future.
IPM Programmes
Insecticidal soaps have been found useful in greenhouses, where they have low toxicity to many beneficial organisms. The fungal pathogen Lecanicillium lecanii is compatible with insecticides and is effective against M. persicae in a wide range of greenhouse crops, but only where high humidities can be maintained. In field crops, however, the main form of IPM is the modification of choice of insecticide and time of application to minimise damage to indigenous natural enemies
Biological Control
Releasing natural enemies produced by commercial breeding companies has become a routine component in the control of M. persicae on greenhouse crops (Powell and Pell, 2007). Here lacewing larvae have given good control on aubergines, and the midge Aphidoletes aphidimyza has proved an effective predator of the aphid on peppers. However. Most releases are of parasitoids of M. persicae, the main species being Aphidius colemani, Aphidius matricariae and Aphidoletes abdominalis.
Host-Plant Resistance
Host-plant resistance to insects is commonly based on secondary plant chemistry. As M. persicae can attack plants in many unrelated botanical families, such resistance is hard to obtain, and the focus has been more on morphological plant characters. Glandular trichomes on potatoes are an important resistance factor. Gibson and Pickett (1983) described the release of the repellent aphid alarm pheromone chemical, (E)-ß-farnesene, from these glandular hairs of wild potato. Trichomes also release a sticky exudate, which immobilizes aphids, and contains toxic sucrose ester compounds, shown to inhibit settling and probing. Glandular hairs have been bred into resistant potato cultivars (Vallejo et al., 1994). Gatehouse et al. (1996) reported enhanced resistance to M. persicae in transgenic potato plants expressing lectins, but such plants present a potential toxicity hazard to humans and have not been commercialised.
Increased waxiness in brassicas decreased aphid colonization, mainly due to a non-preference resistance mechanism (Stoner, 1992).
Cultural Control
Most cultural measures are aimed at reduction of the virus problem, and are particularly important when rapidly transmitted non-persistent viruses are involved. Among cultural control methods recommended are early sowing (e.g. of potatoes), weed management and the use of certified seeds, known to be virus-free (for example, seed potatoes). In peach orchards normal pruning procedures on peach to reduce the number of overwintering eggs are effective control against overwintering eggs. This in turn is also beneficial to crops to which aphids migrate in summer. In potatoes, sprout inhibitor is sprayed to reduce emergence of infested volunteer plants which could serve as reservoirs of infection for the following year's crop. In sugarbeet, where beet itself is the most important reservoir of infection, elimination of overwintering plants is important.
Some success in reducing M. persicae numbers and virus has been achieved in high value field crops by the expensive technique of laying aluminium foil between the plant rows to reflect the sky and disorientate arriving aphids. This approach has been modified and costs reduced by spraying the crop with highly reflective kaolin-based particles (Glenn and Puterka, 2005). Lightweight row covers ('horticultural fleece') of spun-bonded polyester or polyethylene can protect seedlings from viruliferous M. persicae (Harrewijn et al., 1991); the plants grow through the fleece as they get older.
References
Top of pageAPPPC, 1987. Insect pests of economic significance affecting major crops of the countries in Asia and the Pacific region. Technical Document No. 135. Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific region (RAPA).
Börner C, 1952. Europae Centralis Aphides. Mitt. Thür. Bot. Ges., Weimer, 3:1-488.
CIE, 1979. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, No. 45. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Crossthwaite AJ, Denholm I, Field LM, Foster SP, Lind R, Williamson MS, Slater R, 2011. Mutation of a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor ss subunit is associated with resistance to neonicotinoid insecticides in the aphid Myzus persicae. BMC Neuroscience (online), 12:51.
Emden HFvan, Eastop VF, Hughes HD, Way MJ, 1969. The ecology of Myzus persicae. Annual Review of Entomology, 14:197-270.
Fischer S, Leger A, 1996. Macrolophus caliginosus W. (Heteroptera, Miridae), un auxiliare a exploiter en serre. Revue Suisse de Viticulture,- Arboriculture et d'Horticulture, 28(2):111-112.
Gabrid NV, 1989. Aphids of Trees and Shrubs of the Issyk-Kul' Region. Frunze, Ilim, SSR: Institut Biologii, Akademiya Nauk Kirgizskoi SSR.
Ghosh AK, 1975. Aphids of economic importance in India. Calcutta, India: The Agricultural Society of India.
Heie OE, 1994. The Aphidoidea of Fennoscandia and Denmark. V. Family Aphididae: Part 2 of tribe Macrosiphini of subfamily Aphidinae. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica, 28:1-242.
Ilharco FA, 1982. Aphidofauna Aeoriana: Comentarios zoogeograficos. Boletim da Sociedade Portuguese de Entomologia, 7:275-285.
Mackauer M, Way MY, 1976. Myzus persicae Sulz., an aphid of world importance. In: Delucchi VF, ed. Studies in Biological Control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 51-119.
Michelotto MD, Busoli AC, 2003. Aphids diversity on cotton field in Campo Verde, Mato Grosso State. Bragantia, 62(1):75-79.
Pajmon A, 1997. Appearance of aphids in seed potato crops. Sodobno Kmetijstvo, 30(2):75-78.
Remaudiere G, Autrique A, 1985. Contribution à l'écologie des aphides africains. étude FAO Production Végétale et Protection des Plantes, 64: 1-214. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Sexson DL, Wyman J, Radcliffe EB, Hoy CJ, Ragsdale DW, Dively GP, 2005. .
Tabilio MR, Vita G, 1995. Osservazioni preliminari sulla possibilita di contenere gli afidi del pesco in pieno campo, con l'ausilio della Forficula decipiens Gene. Italus-Hortus, 2(5-6):28-31.
Tamaki G, Butt BA, Landis BJ, 1970. Arrest and aggregation of male Myzus persicae (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 63:955-960.
Tao CC, 1991. Aphid Fauna of Taiwan Province, China. Taipei, Taiwan: Provincial Museum.
UC (University of California), 1986. IPM for Potatoes in the Western United States. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oakland, Statewide Integrated Pest Mangement Project, Pub. No. 3316.
van Emden HF, Eastop VF, Hughes HD, Way MJ, 1969. The ecology of Myzus persicae. Annual Review of Entomology, 14:197-270.
Verma KD, Das SM, 1992. The Aphidididae of North-West India. New Delhi, India: Ashish Publishing House.
Wang DS, Kuang KY, Wu SC, Zhu ZY, Yuan YD, Chen YL, Yang XQ, 2000. The occurrence and control of dominant insect pests and diseases on sweet pepper in advanced greenhouses. Acta Agriculturae Shanghai, 16(Supplement):10-16.
Distribution References
APPPC, 1987. Insect pests of economic significance affecting major crops of the countries in Asia and the Pacific region. In: Technical Document No. 135, Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific region (RAPA).
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status inferred from regional distribution. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated b. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Gabrid NV, 1989. Aphids of Trees and Shrubs of the Issyk-Kul' Region., Frunze, Ilim, SSR, Institut Biologii, Akademiya Nauk Kirgizskoi SSR.
Ghosh AK, 1975. Aphids of economic importance in India., Calcutta, India: The Agricultural Society of India.
Heie OE, 1994. The Aphidoidea of Fennoscandia and Denmark. V. Family Aphididae: Part 2 of tribe Macrosiphini of subfamily Aphidinae. In: Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica, 28 1-242.
Ilharco FA, 1982. (Aphidofauna Aeoriana: Comentarios zoogeograficos). In: Boletim da Sociedade Portuguese de Entomologia, 7 275-285.
Remaudiere G, Autrique A, 1985. (Contribution à l'écologie des aphides africains). In: étude FAO Production Végétale et Protection des Plantes, 64 Rome, Italy: FAO. 1-214.
Tao CC, 1991. Aphid Fauna of Taiwan Province, China., Taipei, Taiwan: Provincial Museum.
UC (University of California), 1986. IPM for Potatoes in the Western United States. In: Statewide Integrated Pest Mangement Project, Oakland, University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Verma KD, Das SM, 1992. The Aphidididae of North-West India., New Delhi, India: Ashish Publishing House.
Distribution Maps
Top of pageSelect a dataset
Map Legends
-
CABI Summary Records
Map Filters
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/