Pineus pini (pine woolly aphid)
Index
- Pictures
- Identity
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Description
- Distribution
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- Symptoms
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Vectors
- Plant Trade
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- 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 reportIdentity
Top of pagePreferred Scientific Name
- Pineus pini sensu lato
Preferred Common Name
- pine woolly aphid
Other Scientific Names
- Anisophleba pini Koch, 1857
- Aphis pini Gmelin, 1790
- Kermaphis pini var. laevis Maskell, 1885
- Kermes pini Macquart, 1819
- Pineus boerneri Annand, 1928
- Pineus havrylenkoi Blanchard, 1944
- Pineus laevis (Maskell, 1885) Börner, 1907
- Pineus pini (Macquart, 1819) Börner, 1907
- Pineus simmondsi Yaseen & Ghani, 1971
- Pineus sylvestris Annand, 1928
International Common Names
- English: pine, adelgid; pine, aphid, common; pine, aphid, eurasian; pine, woolly, aphid; scots pine, adelges
Local Common Names
- Australia: pine adelgid
- Denmark: fyrrestammelus
- Finland: mäntykirva
- Germany: Wollaus, Europaeische Kiefern-; Wollaus, Kieferntrieb-
- New Zealand: pine adelgid; pine twig chermes
- Norway: furubarlus
- Sweden: tall-lus
EPPO code
- PINEPI (Pineus pini)
Summary of Invasiveness
Top of pageInfestation by P. pini (sensu lato) causes premature needle shedding and reduction in the length of infested needles, reducing productivity and leading to up to 50% loss of growth increment (Day et al., 2003) and up to 20% tree mortality (Odera, 1974). Stress can make pine trees more vulnerable to attack (Madoffe and Austara, 1993; Day et al., 2003). Damage to trees is most severe under warm, dry conditions (Mailu et al., 1978a).
Wind can facilitate the spread of Pineus (McClure, 1989a), but transmission between countries and between continents is mainly by human transport of infested planting material of two-needled pines (Barnes et al., 1976). The cryptic habit of these insects make them very difficult to detect at plant quarantine inspection, and after introduction they may be overlooked for years because the attention of forest entomologists is often focused on more easily detected pests. In Zimbabwe, the pest was accidentally introduced in 1962 but was not noticed until 1968 (Barnes et al., 1976).
Once introduced and established, alien P. pini (sensu lato) can spread at an average rate of spread of 15 km per year (McClure, 1989b). In Zimbabwe it spread rapidly and reached all the important areas of afforestation within 12 years of its introduction; nearly all the hard pines were attacked with varying degrees of severity, whereas introduced species of soft pine were not (Barnes et al., 1976).
P. pini (sensu lato) has been recorded outcompeting native insects on pines in Kyrgyzstan (Ponomareva and Gabrid, 1981) and in north-eastern North America (McClure 1984a, 1989b).
Taxonomic Tree
Top of page- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Hemiptera
- Suborder: Sternorrhyncha
- Unknown: Aphidoidea
- Family: Adelgidae
- Genus: Pineus
- Species: Pineus pini
Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Top of pagePineus cladogenous Fang & Sun (1985) and Pineus harukawai Inouye (1953), known from Japan, are not regarded as part of the Pineus pini sensu lato complex (Blackman and Eastop, 1994).
Description
Top of pageWingless (apterous) adult females are each 0.9-2.3 mm long, the body being ovoid to turbinate; the heavily sclerotized sistens is easier to study than the lightly sclerotized summer form (progrediens); Carter (1971) provides an illustration of the dorsum. Adults are similar to the immature instars, being ovoid with dorsal segmentally arranged sclerotized plates ornamented with wax glands, and short legs and antennae concealed beneath the body. However, the adult females each possess an ovipositor, which is lacking in the immature stages, and the antennae are proportionally very short, with only 1-3 segments that are often partly or completely fused together. There is greater fusion of dorsal plates in adults than in immature Pineus, especially on the head and anterior parts of the thorax.
Winged adult female Pineus resemble other winged aphids in having the body clearly divided into head, thorax and abdomen, and in possessing well-developed legs and antennae; Carter (1971) provides an illustration of the dorsum. The body length is 1.0-1.9 mm. They differ from alate Aphididae in each possessing an ovipositor like that of the apterous female. There are five antennal segments, with each of segments III, IV and V often bearing a single, large sensorium. Compound eyes are present. The shape and venation of the wings is sometimes taxonomically useful.
P. pini (sensu lato) eggs are laid in a nest of white wax fibres secreted by the wax pores of the adult female. Each egg is fairly elongate-ovoid, about 0.2 mm long, and yellow when laid but gradually changes colour to brownish-red as the embryo develops.
First-instar crawlers of Pineus species are very small (each 0.2-0.4 mm long), reddish-brown, ovoid and wingless, with three pairs of legs and small, three-segmented setae; the last antennal segment bears a long apical seta. Eyes are represented only by three oscelli on each side of the head.
Distribution
Top of pageP. pini is native to western and Central Europe (Blackman and Eastop, 1994) and P. boerneri may be of eastern Asian origin (Blackman and Eastop, 1994). Records of these species from other parts of the world represent introduced populations.
The geographical records listed for P. pini sensu lato can be tentatively assigned to the following species:
P. pini: Western and Central Europe, Australia, New Zealand.
P. boerneri: China, Taiwan, Hawaii, California, north-eastern USA, Chile and Argentina, eastern and southern Africa, Australia, New Zealand and probably Malaysia; also possibly Pakistan.
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: 17 Dec 2021Continent/Country/Region | Distribution | Last Reported | Origin | First Reported | Invasive | Reference | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Africa |
|||||||
Ethiopia | Present | Introduced | |||||
Kenya | Present | Introduced | 1969 | Invasive | |||
Malawi | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Morocco | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
South Africa | Present | Introduced | 1978 | Invasive | |||
Tanzania | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Zambia | Present | Introduced | Invasive | Original citation: Skakachite & Chenduauka, 1991 | |||
Zimbabwe | Present | Introduced | 1962 | Invasive | |||
Asia |
|||||||
China | Present | Present based on regional distribution. | |||||
-Jiangsu | Present | ||||||
-Liaoning | Present | ||||||
-Zhejiang | Present | ||||||
Georgia | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Israel | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Jordan | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Kyrgyzstan | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Lebanon | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Malaysia | Present | Present based on regional distribution. | |||||
-Peninsular Malaysia | Present | Introduced | |||||
Pakistan | Present | Introduced | |||||
Taiwan | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Turkey | Present | ||||||
Europe |
|||||||
Czechoslovakia | Present | Native | |||||
Finland | Present | Native | |||||
France | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Germany | Present | Native | |||||
Ireland | Present, Widespread | Native | |||||
Italy | Present, Widespread | Native | Invasive | ||||
Lithuania | Present | Native | Original citation: Yuronis & Ionaitis, 1984 | ||||
Netherlands | Present, Widespread | Native | |||||
Poland | Present | ||||||
Slovakia | Present | ||||||
Spain | Present | Native | |||||
Sweden | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
United Kingdom | Present, Widespread | Native | |||||
-Scotland | Present, Widespread | Native | Original citation: Murray & Parry, 1969 | ||||
North America |
|||||||
United States | Present | Present based on regional distribution. | |||||
-Connecticut | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Hawaii | Present | Introduced | Invasive | First reported: pre-1972 | |||
-Maine | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Massachusetts | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-New Hampshire | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Rhode Island | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Utah | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Vermont | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Oceania |
|||||||
Australia | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-New South Wales | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-South Australia | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Tasmania | Present | Introduced | Invasive | Original citation: Anon., 2001 | |||
-Victoria | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
-Western Australia | Present | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
New Zealand | Present, Widespread | Introduced | Invasive | First reported: before 1884 | |||
South America |
|||||||
Argentina | Present | Introduced | Invasive | Original citation: Fiorentino & Diodato de Medina, 1991 | |||
Chile | Present | Introduced | Invasive | Original citation: Anon., 2001 |
History of Introduction and Spread
Top of pageRisk of Introduction
Top of pageHabitat
Top of pagePineus boerneri has been recorded preferentially attacking the 3-year-old growth of the lower canopy of Pinus resinosa in the north-eastern USA, feeding beneath bark flakes or at the base of the needle sheaths (McClure, 1982).
Habitat List
Top of pageCategory | Sub-Category | Habitat | Presence | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|
Terrestrial | Managed | Cultivated / agricultural land | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Managed | Protected agriculture (e.g. glasshouse production) | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Managed | Managed forests, plantations and orchards | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Managed | Managed grasslands (grazing systems) | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Managed | Disturbed areas | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Managed | Rail / roadsides | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Managed | Urban / peri-urban areas | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Natural / Semi-natural | Natural forests | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Natural / Semi-natural | Natural grasslands | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Natural / Semi-natural | Riverbanks | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Natural / Semi-natural | Wetlands | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Natural / Semi-natural | Cold lands / tundra | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Littoral | Coastal areas | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Hosts/Species Affected
Top of pagePineus boerneri was recorded attacking 39 species of Pinus in Kenya (Odera, 1974), including all the species listed in this datasheet. Host plants that have evolved together with an aphid species have usually evolved defences against aphid infestation that result in slower aphid reproduction on that host.
McClure (1990) suggested that the native host of P. boerneri was Pinus thunbergii; the aphid had significantly greater survival and fecundity on Pinus resinosa (native to America) than on P. thunbergii (native to China).
Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
Top of pagePlant name | Family | Context | References |
---|---|---|---|
Pinus canariensis (Canary pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus caribaea (Caribbean pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus contorta (lodgepole pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus elliottii (slash pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus halepensis (Aleppo pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus hartwegii (Hartweg pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus kesiya (khasya pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus massoniana (masson pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus maximinoi (thin-leaf pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus montezumae (montezuma pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus mugo (mountain pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus muricata (bishop pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus oocarpa (ocote pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus patula (Mexican weeping pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus pinaster (maritime pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus pinea (stone pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus radiata (radiata pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus resinosa (red pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus sylvestris (Scots pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus taiwanensis (Taiwan pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus teocote (twisted leaf pine) | Pinaceae | Main | |
Pinus thunbergii (Japanese black pine) | Pinaceae | Main |
Symptoms
Top of pageList of Symptoms/Signs
Top of pageSign | Life Stages | Type |
---|---|---|
Fruit / abnormal shape | ||
Fruit / external feeding | ||
Fruit / gummosis | ||
Fruit / lesions: on pods | ||
Growing point / dieback | ||
Growing point / dwarfing; stunting | ||
Growing point / external feeding | ||
Inflorescence / external feeding | ||
Leaves / abnormal leaf fall | ||
Leaves / yellowed or dead | ||
Stems / dead heart | ||
Stems / dieback | ||
Stems / distortion | ||
Stems / external feeding | ||
Stems / gummosis or resinosis | ||
Stems / stunting or rosetting | ||
Whole plant / early senescence | ||
Whole plant / external feeding | ||
Whole plant / plant dead; dieback |
Biology and Ecology
Top of pageSteffan (1970a) discussed the evolution of asexual lines in species of adelgids including P. pini, and remarked that the asexual strain often had a different number of chromosomes to the sexual strain. P. pini may have arisen as an asexual strain of P. orientalis (Marchal, 1911; Carter, 1969, 1971).
Blackman et al. (1995) found that different populations of Pineus ?boerneri varied in their chromosome number, as might be expected of an asexual species. Specimens with 2n=16 were recorded from Hawaii and California, USA; samples with 2n=17 were recorded from California, Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Some samples from Australia and New Zealand had 2n=19 and 2n=21. Blackman et al. (1995) postulated that the 17-chromosome form of P. boerneri could have arisen from the 16-chromosome form through a single dissociation of one of the longest pair of chromosomes. Such dissociations are common in permanently parthenogenetic populations of aphids (Blackman, 1980).
Physiology and Phenology
In North America, Pineus boerneri is parthenogenetic, trivoltine and passes through six stages of development (McClure, 1989b); however, the generation overlap was so pronounced that all the developmental stages were present at almost all times of the year.
The following is based on Carter (1971). The life cycle of P. pini (sensu lato) differs from that of most adelgids by its simplicity. There may be a partial migration of alatae (sexuparae) to Picea (the ancestral primary host) each year, but males are never produced and sexual reproduction and gall formation on Picea does not occur.
In the absence of sexual reproduction, gall-forming females (gallicolae) do not occur, and asexual reproduction by wingless and winged (alate) females continues throughout the year. There are at least three overlapping generations annually. Clutches of eggs are laid (one egg at a time) over a period of several weeks, resulting in considerable differences between the hatching times of the first and last eggs laid. There are five immature instars before an adult is produced. Overwintering is as wingless adult females (hiemosistentes) that are heavily sclerotized, and as second- and third-instar larvae. In spring, the larvae develop into apterous progredientes (the summer form of the adult female, which is lightly sclerotized) and alate (winged) females.
Reproductive Biology
Reproduction is asexual all year, by the parthenogenetic production of eggs.
Environmental Requirements
Stress can make pine trees more vulnerable to attack by P. boerneri (Madoffe and Austara, 1993; Day et al., 2003). Air pollution was found to make pines more susceptible to attack by P. pini in Finland, possibly due to a resultant reduction in predatory mite populations (Heliovaara and Vaisanen, 1989).
In the north-eastern USA, survival of P. boerneri was higher on branches than on needles during winter, but was higher on needles than on branches in spring and summer (McClure, 1984a). Wind facilitated the spread of P. boerneri in north-eastern North America, and extremes of summer and winter temperatures determined the ultimate limits of its latitudinal distribution; heavy rain reduced its abundance (McClure, 1989a).
In Malawi, the biological performance and pest status of P. boerneri is influenced by external factors especially the within-tree and seasonal fluctuations in the level of nitrogen, total rainfall and canopy structure (Chilima and Leather, 2001). Prolonged, heavy rainfall reduced population levels significantly, mainly through eggs and crawlers being washed off the tree, whereas numbers increased in hot, dry weather; other causes of mortality were found to be excessive heat and crawler dispersion (Mailu et al., 1980).
In the UK, Carter and Barson (1973) found that the threshold temperature for flight by winged Pineus was 16°C, and at least 64% of the catch was taken in the afternoon; fluctuations in the mean date of flight each year were probably related to the phonological condition of the food plant.
Associations
In Scotland, UK, P. pini is sometimes associated with a covering of the fungus Cucurbitaria pithyophila [Curreya pityophila] on the lower branches of Pinus sylvestris, occasionally killing the bark (Murray and Parry, 1969).
In north-eastern America, where the introduced P. boerneri and the native P. coloradensis occur together on Pinus resinosa, P. boerneri was found to maintain numerical dominance over P. coloradensis (McClure, 1984a) and displaced P. coloradensis in the majority of stands over a 5-year period (McClure, 1989b). However, where P. boerneri and Matsucoccus resinosae (an introduced scale insect) occurred together, the presence of M. resinosae on the branches resulted in significantly reduced numbers of P. boerneri on both branches and needles, whereas the presence of P. boerneri had no significant effect on numbers of M. resinosae. In one-third of the affected stands, P. boerneri was excluded by the scale insect within 3 years (McClure, 1990).
Natural enemies
Top of pageNatural enemy | Type | Life stages | Specificity | References | Biological control in | Biological control on |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cheilomenes aurora | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Nymphs; Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Diomus pumilio | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Nymphs; Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Exochomus flavipes | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Nymphs; Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Exochomus quadripustulatus | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Nymphs; Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Leucopis argenticollis | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Kenya | Pinus | ||
Leucopis atrifacies | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Nymphs; Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Leucopis manii | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Nymphs; Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Leucopis nigraluna | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Nymphs; Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Leucopis obscura | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Australia; Hawaii; USA; Hawaii | Pinopsida; Pinus; Pinus pinaster | ||
Leucopis praecox | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | Australia | Pinus | ||
Leucopis tapiae | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Nymphs; Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Rhyzobius chrysomeloides | Predator | Adults; Arthropods|Nymphs | ||||
Scymnus nigrinus | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Nymphs; Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Scymnus suturalis | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Nymphs; Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Tetraphleps raoi | Predator | Adults; Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Nymphs; Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Wesmaelius concinnus | Predator | Australia | Pinus |
Notes on Natural Enemies
Top of pageIn Kenya, predatory Exochomus spp. were found to remove 12% of the Pineus boerneri population (Mailu et al., 1980). In Zimbabwe, coccinellid beetles were responsible for a marked decline in the infestation (Anon., 1971).
Biological control attempts have also been made in Australia (Waterhouse and Sands, 2001). Only Exochomus quadripustulatus, imported from the UK, became established there. The native predator Diomus pumilo is considered an important predator.
Means of Movement and Dispersal
Top of pageDispersal of P. pini (sensu lato) is mainly achieved by the tiny first-instar larvae, which walk actively and seek new feeding sites. They are capable of walking a few metres only, but can be picked up and carried over longer distances by the wind. Wind facilitated the spread of P. boerneri in north-eastern North America (McClure, 1989a). Transmission between countries and between continents is by human transport of infested planting material (Barnes et al., 1976).
Crawlers of P. boerneri were found to be positively phototactic in some circumstances, but were negatively phototactic and positively thigmotactic when seeking to settle and feed, therefore colonizing tight crevices; branch undersides were settled much more often than better-lit branch upper surfaces (Mailu et al., 1982a).
Occasionally, in crowded conditions, P. pini (sensu lato) produce winged females that fly to seek new host trees. In the UK, winged Pineus were recorded mainly in late May and June each year; the threshold temperature for flight by winged Pineus was 16°C, and at least 64% of the catch was taken in the afternoon; fluctuations in the mean date of flight each year was probably related to the phenological condition of the food plant (Carter and Barson, 1973).
Pathway Vectors
Top of pageVector | Notes | Long Distance | Local | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Clothing, footwear and possessions | Air | Yes | ||
Plants or parts of plants | Yes |
Plant Trade
Top of pagePlant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport | Pest stages | Borne internally | Borne externally | Visibility of pest or symptoms |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bark | arthropods/adults; arthropods/eggs; arthropods/nymphs | Yes | Pest or symptoms usually invisible | |
Flowers/Inflorescences/Cones/Calyx | arthropods/adults; arthropods/eggs; arthropods/nymphs | Yes | Pest or symptoms usually invisible | |
Leaves | arthropods/adults; arthropods/eggs; arthropods/nymphs | Yes | Pest or symptoms usually invisible | |
Seedlings/Micropropagated plants | arthropods/adults; arthropods/eggs; arthropods/nymphs | Yes | Pest or symptoms usually invisible | |
Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches | arthropods/adults; arthropods/eggs; arthropods/nymphs | Yes | Pest or symptoms usually invisible |
Impact Summary
Top of pageCategory | Impact |
---|---|
Animal/plant collections | Negative |
Animal/plant products | Negative |
Biodiversity (generally) | None |
Crop production | None |
Environment (generally) | None |
Fisheries / aquaculture | None |
Forestry production | Negative |
Human health | None |
Livestock production | None |
Native fauna | None |
Native flora | None |
Rare/protected species | None |
Tourism | None |
Trade/international relations | Negative |
Transport/travel | None |
Economic Impact
Top of pageIn sub-Saharan Africa pine trees are widely grown, both commercially and by small-scale farmers; they are an important source of building material and fuelwood. Infestation by Pineus boerneri causes premature needle shedding and reduction in the length of infested needles, reducing productivity and leading to up to 50% loss of growth increment (Day et al., 2003) and up to 20% tree mortality (Odera, 1974). In South Africa, Zwolinski (1990) recorded loss of increment at breast height, and overall height, in Pinus pinaster trees at 63 and 65%, respectively. Madoffe and Austara (1990) recorded P. boerneri (as P. pini) causing over 20% loss of dry matter in seedlings of Pinus patula in Tanzania. Similarly, infestation of developing cones of P. pinaster in South Africa reduced overall seed yield by 23%, not counting those cones that failed to reach maturity (Zwolinski et al., 1989). Murphy (1996) estimated that P. boerneri and another introduced pine aphid (Eulachnus rileyi) together were causing a growth increment loss of US $1.5 million annually. Damage to trees is most severe under warm, dry conditions (Mailu et al., 1978a). Survey procedures and criteria for assessment of damage by P. boerneri were given by Mailu et al. (1980).
P. boerneri was recorded injuring and killing trees at all of the infested sites studied in Connecticut and Massachusetts (north-eastern USA) (McClure, 1989b). It is listed (as P. havrylenkoi) as one of the main pests of pine trees in Argentina (Fiorentino and Diodato de Medina, 1991).
Mendel et al. (1994) recorded P. pini from Jordan for the first time, causing severe damage to young stands of Aleppo and stone pines. It is not clear whether this record referred to P. boerneri or P. pini.
In Australia (Victoria), Minko (1962) mentioned P. pini causing damage to Pinus radiata in nurseries; this may actually have referred to P. boerneri.
Pineus pini (sensu lato)
In response to problems with adelgids (including P. pini) on exotic conifers grown in the numerous tree nurseries east of Oldenburg, Germany, Steffan (1970b) recommended that these tree species should not be planted in shelter belts, parks or forests within the growing region.
In Sweden, infestation by P. pini of pine tree hosts in glasshouse cultures of chanterelle mushrooms limited long-term cultivation of this crop (Zambonelli, 2002).
Covassi and Binazzi (1981) mentioned that, in Italy, P. pini is injurious to young pine trees in nurseries, new plantations, parks and gardens in several parts of Italy.
In the Republic of Georgia, a study of damage caused by P. pini (sensu lato) found that infestation could result in a 32% reduction in annual height increment, and various other signs of damage, and concluded that the adelgid was a serious threat to pine trees in that zone (Saradzhishvili, 1985).
In Kyrgyzstan, P. pini (sensu lato) (as P. pini) outcompeted the native Oligonychus piceae in the same ecological niche; local natural enemies were ineffective against it, suggesting it was an introduction, and Pineus numbers were only reduced after Leucopis spp. were released (Ponomareva and Gabrid, 1981).
Canakcioglu (1972) listed P. pini as one of the most important forest pests in Turkey.
Diagnosis
Top of pageDetection and Inspection
Top of pageSimilarities to Other Species/Conditions
Top of pagePrevention 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.
Phytosanitary Measures
Restricted movement and thorough inspection of planting material of Haploxylon pines is the most effective way to prevent P. pini (sensu lato) entering a country.
Cultural Control and Sanitary Methods
Stress can make pine trees more vulnerable to attack by P. boerneri (Madoffe and Austara, 1993); avoidance of marginal growing conditions through more attention to the selection of suitable planting sites can avoid problems with Pineus infestation (Day et al., 2003).
Possible management of P. boerneri in Malawi, through the regulation of nitrogen nutrition and canopy structure, was discussed by Chilima and Leather (2001).
In response to problems with adelgids (including P. pini) on exotic conifers grown in the numerous tree nurseries east of Oldenburg, Germany, Steffan (1970b) recommended that these tree species should not be planted in shelter belts, parks or forests within the growing region.
Host-Plant Resistance
Different species of pine tree, and different provenances of any one pine species, vary in their susceptibility to attack by P. pini (sensu lato) (Simpson and Ades, 1990b; Falkenhagen, 1991a, b). The level of susceptibility of a particular pine species may vary also between one locality and another, reflecting different levels of environmental stress between sites. Simpson and Ades (1990b) called for more research on the planting of multi-clonal mixtures and the pattern in which they are planted, to minimize losses.
Replanting with species or provenances of pines less susceptible to attack is an option for the control of P. pini (sensu lato), but is a long-term and possibly expensive solution that may incur hidden costs in reduced yield or quality, e.g. Pinus radiata has been replaced with the less susceptible P. patula in East Africa, but the latter species is inferior in fibre quality (Day et al., 2003).
Odera (1974) mentioned that Pinus ayacahuite and P. strobes var. chiapensis are resistant to attack by Pineus boerneri (as Pineus pini) in Kenya.
Biological Control
Where members of P. pini (sensu lato) have been accidentally introduced, they are good candidates for classical biological control (Mills, 1990). Pineus boerneri has been controlled successfully by introduced natural enemies in Hawaii, New Zealand and Chile.
Introduced populations of P. boerneri have been successfully controlled by the introduction of predatory species of Leucopis. The most effective control agent recorded is L. tapiae in Hawaii, where Leucopis tapiae (as L. obscura, on Maui, Molokai and Kauai islands) and L. nigraluna (on Hawaii island) were found to maintain P. boerneri (as P. pini) populations below economically significant levels (Nakao et al., 1978; Culliney et al., 1988).
In 1991 L. tapiae was also found to have accidentally entered Malawi, but has not provided such effective control there as in Hawaii (Greathead, 1995; Day et al., 2003). An account of various (mostly unsuccessful) introductions of alien predator species to East Africa against P. boerneri is given by Day et al. (2003).
In Kyrgyzstan, P. pini (sensu lato) (as P. pini) outcompeted the native Oligonychus piceae in the same ecological niche; local natural enemies were ineffective against it, suggesting it was an introduction, and Pineus numbers were only reduced after Leucopis spp. were released (Ponomareva and Gabrid, 1981).
Introduction of the predatory bug Tetraphleps raoi to Kenya in 1975 resulted in some reduction in P. boerneri populations, but not sufficient to prevent reduction of tree growth and occasional tree mortality (Karanja and Aloo, 1990).
References
Top of pageAnnand PN, 1928. A contribution toward a monograph of the Adelginae (Phylloxeridae) of North America. Stanford University Publications, University Series, 6(1):1-146.
Anon, 1978. Forest and shade trees - new host records. United States Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Plant Pest Report, 3:39, 561.
Blanchard EE, 1944. Descripciones y anataciones de afidoideos argentinos. Acta Zoologica Lilloana, 2:15-22.
Börner C, 1907. Systematik und Biologie der Chermiden. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 32:413-420.
Chilima CZ, 1991. The status and development of conifer aphid damage in Malawi. Workshop Proceedings. Exotic aphid pests of conifers: a crisis in African forestry, Muguga, Kenya: Kenya Forest Research Institute and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 64-67.
Inouye M, 1953. Monographische Studie ueber die japanischen Koniferen-Gallenlaeuse (Adelgidae). Bulletin of the Sapporo Government Forest Experiment Station, 15:1-91.
Koch CL, 1857. Die pflanzenläuse Aphiden getreu nach dem Leben abgebildet und beschrieben. Nürnburg, 275-336.
Macquart MJ, 1819. Notice sur les insects hémiptères du genre Psylle. Séances Publiques de la Société d’amateurs des Sciences et Arts de la ville de Lille. Séance du Mars, 1819:81-86.
Marchall P, 1911. La spanadrie et l’obliteration de la reproduction sexuée chez les Chermes. Compte rendu hebdomadiare des Scéances de l’Academie des Sciences, Paris, 153:299-302.
Maskell WM, 1885. Note on an aphidian insect infesting pine trees, with observations on the name "Chermes" or "Kermes". Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute (1884), 17:13-29.
Questienne P, 1979. Notes sur quelques insectes nuisibles aux pins au Maroc. Annales de Gembloux, 85(2):113-130.
Ravensberg K, 1954. Jaarb. Proefsta. Boomkwek. Boskoop 1953:17-21 (in Dutch).
Shakachite O, Chenduauka B, 1991. A report on current status of pine insect pests with particular reference to pine aphids in Zambia. In: Ceisla WM, Odera J, Cock MJW, Ceisla PM, eds. Workshop Proceedings: exotic aphid pests of conifers. A crisis in African forestry, Muguga, Kenya 3-6 June 1991. Rome, Italy, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 85-93.
Zambonelli A, 2002. Current research on chanterelle cultivation in Sweden. In: Danell E, Hall I, eds. Edible mycorrhizal mushrooms and their cultivation. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Edible Mycorrhizal Mushrooms, Christchurch, New Zealand, 3-6 July 2001, 0-4.
Zondag R, 1977. Pine twig chermes or pine woolly aphid. Forest and Timber insects in New Zealand No. 25.
Distribution References
Anon, 1978. Forest and shade trees - new host records. In: Cooperative Plant Pest Report, 3 United States Department of Agriculture. 39, 561.
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
Carter C I, 1971. Bull. For. Commn., Lond. 51 pp.
Chilima CZ, 1991. The status and development of conifer aphid damage in Malawi. [Workshop Proceedings. Exotic aphid pests of conifers: a crisis in African forestry], Muguga, Kenya: Kenya Forest Research Institute and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 64-67.
NHM, 1924. Specimen record from the collection in the Natural History Museum (London, UK)., London, UK: Natural History Museum (London).
NHM, 1943. Specimen record from the collection in the Natural History Museum (London, UK)., London, UK: Natural History Museum (London).
NHM, 1963. Specimen record from the collection in the Natural History Museum (London, UK)., London, UK: Natural History Museum (London).
NHM, 1965. Specimen record from the collection in the Natural History Museum (London, UK)., London, UK: Natural History Museum (London).
NHM, 1970. Specimen record from the collection in the Natural History Museum (London, UK)., London, UK: Natural History Museum (London).
NHM, 1973. Specimen record from the collection in the Natural History Museum (London, UK)., London, UK: Natural History Museum (London).
NHM, 1984. Specimen record from the collection in the Natural History Museum (London, UK)., London, UK: Natural History Museum (London).
NHM, 1990. Specimen record from the collection in the Natural History Museum (London, UK)., London, UK: Natural History Museum (London).
Zambonelli A, 2002. Current research on chanterelle cultivation in Sweden. In: Edible mycorrhizal mushrooms and their cultivation [Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Edible Mycorrhizal Mushrooms, Christchurch, New Zealand, 3-6 July 2001], [ed. by Danell E, Hall I]. 0-4.
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/