Toxoptera citricida (black citrus aphid)
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Species Vectored
- Biology and Ecology
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- 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
- Toxoptera citricida (Kirkaldy)
Preferred Common Name
- black citrus aphid
Other Scientific Names
- Aphis aeglis Shinji
- Aphis citricidus (Kirkaldy)
- Aphis nigricans van der Goot
- Aphis tavaresi Del. Guercio
- Myzus citricidus Kirkaldy
- Paratoxoptera argentiniensis EE Blanchard
- Toxoptera aphoides van der Goot
- Toxoptera citricidus Kirkaldy
- Toxoptera tavaresi (Del Guercio)
International Common Names
- English: brown citrus aphid; citrus aphid; tropical citrus aphid
- Spanish: afido moreno de los cítricos; afido vector de la tristaza en citricos; piojo de los citricos; pulgón citricida (Mexico); pulgón de la tristeza; pulgón marrón; pulgón negro de los cítricos; pulgón negro de los citros
- French: puceron noir de l'oranger; puceron toxoptere citricide
- Chinese: he juya
Local Common Names
- Brazil: pulgao preto da laranjeira
- Germany: Braune Zitrus-Blattlaus; Braune Zitruslaus
- Japan: abura mushi; mikan-kuro-aburamusi
- APHICI (Aphis citricidus)
- TOXOCI (Toxoptera citricida)
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Hemiptera
- Suborder: Sternorrhyncha
- Unknown: Aphidoidea
- Family: Aphididae
- Genus: Toxoptera
- Species: Toxoptera citricida
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page The aphid was first described as Myzus citricidus and was noted to be similar to Myzus cerasi, common on citrus throughout Hawaii, and a likely introduction from China (Kirkaldy, 1907). The species name, citricidus, was derived as a Latin adjective of the noun meaning 'citrus killer' and had a masculine ending to agree with Myzus. It has been suggested that, as Toxoptera Koch is the correct genus for the aphid and is feminine, it is necessary that its nomenclature be feminine (Toxoptera citricida), rather than the feminine/masculine combination (Toxoptera citricidus) (Stoetzel, 1994b); however, T. citricidus continues to be widely used in the literature.
DescriptionTop of page Of the 16 to 20 aphid species reported to feed on citrus, five species are most commonly encountered: T. citricida; Aphis spiraecola; Aphis gossypii; Toxoptera aurantii; and Aphis craccivora (the latter is not common). Adult T. citricida are shiny-black and nymphs are grey or reddish-brown, but colour alone is not distinctive because other aphids on citrus have dark coloration.
Winged adult female (alata): 1.1-2.6 mm in length; antennae six segmented with I, II, and III heavy black and other segments banded at joints, secondary rhinaria 7-20 on III and 0-4 on IV, setae on antennae III subequal to or exceeding diameter of segment; siphunculi black, elongate; cauda black, elongate with 25-40 setae; stridulatory apparatus on abdomen present; forewing with pterostigma light brown and media usually twice-branched.
Wingless adult female (aptera): 1.5-2.8 mm in length; oval; antennae six segmented with no secondary rhinaria; segments not banded, but segments I and II black, segments III and IV pale and slightly swollen, and segments V and VI dark at least at joints, setae on antennae III at least as long as the diameter of the segment; siphunculi black, elongate, and only slightly longer than cauda; cauda black and elongate with about 30 setae; 'knees' of all three pairs of legs very dark; stridulatory apparatus present.
DistributionTop of page T. citricida is believed to be native to Asia where citrus originated. Since the first half of the twentieth century, the aphid has been known to be widely distributed on citrus in Asia, India, New Zealand, Australia, Pacific Islands (including Hawaii), Africa south of the Sahara, Madagascar, Indian Ocean Islands and South America. This distribution is attributed to movement of infested leaves or propagation material. Areas where citrus was established by seed or aphid-free propagation material have remained uninfested (e.g. North and Central America, Caribbean Basin) until recently (Yokomi et al., 1994). Because ancestral citrus (old line) is known to contain many viruses and virus-like agents, many countries prevent entry of citrus propagation material from abroad. This, undoubtedly, has restricted the aphid's hitchhiking potential. On the other hand, there is now more intercontinental movement of people and commerce than ever before and the threat of introduction by this route remains at its highest level.
Although the aphid is tropical/subtropical in origin, the presence of a sexual stage and overwintering as eggs in Japan (Komazaki, 1982) suggests that T. citricida can adapt to different climates. Due to the restricted host range of the aphid to citrus and its relatives, the most favourable citrus environs for T. citricida occur when weather is warm and humid resulting in frequent stimulation of new growth cycles. Similarly, desert/semi-arid and cooler regions provide conditions favourable for T. citricida only seasonally. Populations typically increase rapidly following colony initiation resulting in crowding, a decline in host suitability, and production of winged (alate) aphids. Winged morph production could also be triggered by the physiology of the host. However, a key requirement for spread of T. citricida is that the alata must alight on citrus with new shoot growth to successfully establish a new colony.
A record for Iran in CABI/EPPO (1998) is an error; the species reported in the literature was T. aurantii and not T. citricida.
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|
|Bangladesh||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Bhutan||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Brunei Darussalam||Present||Waterhouse, 1993; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Cambodia||Present||Blackman and Eastop, 1984; Waterhouse, 1993; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|China||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|-Fujian||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Guangdong||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Guangxi||Present||Tsai et al., 1988; Ke et al., 1984|
|-Guizhou||Present||Tsai et al., 1988; Ke et al., 1984; Liu et al., 2012|
|-Hainan||Present||Tsai et al., 1988; Ke et al., 1984|
|-Hong Kong||Present||Blackman and Eastop, 1984; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Hubei||Present||Tsai et al., 1988; Ke et al., 1984|
|-Hunan||Present||Tsai et al., 1988; Ke et al., 1984|
|-Jiangsu||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Jiangxi||Present||Tsai et al., 1988; Ke et al., 1984|
|-Shandong||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sichuan||Present||Tsai et al., 1988; Ke et al., 1984|
|-Yunnan||Present||Tsai et al., 1988; Ke et al., 1984|
|-Zhejiang||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Arunachal Pradesh||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Assam||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Delhi||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Indian Punjab||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Karnataka||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Maharashtra||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Manipur||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Meghalaya||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Odisha||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sikkim||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Tamil Nadu||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Uttar Pradesh||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-West Bengal||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Indonesia||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|-Irian Jaya||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Java||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sulawesi||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sumatra||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Iran||Absent, invalid record||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Japan||Widespread||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Honshu||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Kyushu||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Ryukyu Archipelago||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Shikoku||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Korea, DPR||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Korea, Republic of||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Laos||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Peninsular Malaysia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sabah||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sarawak||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Myanmar||Present||APPPC, 1987; Waterhouse, 1993; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Nepal||Present||Knorr and Shah, 1971; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Philippines||Present||Waterhouse, 1993; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Singapore||Present||Blackman and Eastop, 1984; APPPC, 1987; Waterhouse, 1993; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Sri Lanka||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Taiwan||Widespread||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Thailand||Present||Blackman and Eastop, 1984; APPPC, 1987; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Vietnam||Widespread||Essig, 1949; Waterhouse, 1993; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Angola||Present||van and Harten Ilharco, 1975; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Benin||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Burundi||Present||Seco et al., 1992; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Cameroon||Present||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Central African Republic||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Congo||Present||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Congo Democratic Republic||Present||Tsai, 1999; EPPO, 2014|
|Côte d'Ivoire||Present||Thouvenel and Fauquet, 1977; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Ethiopia||Present||Abate, 1988; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Ghana||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Guinea||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Kenya||Present||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Malawi||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Mauritius||Present||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Mozambique||Present||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Nigeria||Present||UK CAB International, 1961; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Réunion||Present||Etienne and Vilardebo, 1978; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Rwanda||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Saint Helena||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Senegal||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Seychelles||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Sierra Leone||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|South Africa||Widespread||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Sudan||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Swaziland||Present||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Tanzania||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Togo||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Uganda||Present||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Zambia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Zimbabwe||Present||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Bermuda||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Mexico||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|USA||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|-Florida||Widespread||Halbert, 1995; Halbert and Brown, 1996; CABI/EPPO, 1998; Tsai, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Hawaii||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
Central America and Caribbean
|Antigua and Barbuda||Present, few occurrences||1993||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Belize||Present||1996||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|British Virgin Islands||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Cayman Islands||Present||Halbert, 1996; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Costa Rica||Restricted distribution||Lastra et al., 1991; Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Cuba||Present||1992||Yokomi et al., 1994; Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Dominica||Present||Aubert et al., 1992; Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Dominican Republic||Present||1992||Aubert et al., 1992; Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Guadeloupe||Present||1991||Aubert et al., 1992; Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Haiti||Present||Yokomi et al., 1994; Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Honduras||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Jamaica||Present||1993||Yokomi et al., 1994; Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Martinique||Present||1991||Aubert et al., 1992; Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Netherlands Antilles||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Nicaragua||Present||Yokomi et al., 1994; Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Panama||Widespread||Yokomi et al., 1994; Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Puerto Rico||Restricted distribution||1992||Yokomi et al., 1994; Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Saint Kitts and Nevis||Restricted distribution||1993||Yokomi et al., 1994; Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Saint Lucia||Present||Introduced||1992||Invasive||Yokomi et al., 1994; Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; Heileman, 2007; Government of Saint Lucia, 2012; EPPO, 2014|
|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines||Widespread||1993||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Trinidad and Tobago||Widespread||198*||Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|United States Virgin Islands||Restricted distribution||Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Argentina||Present||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Bolivia||Widespread||Smith and Cermeli, 1979; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Bahia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Ceara||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Espirito Santo||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014; Martins et al., 2016|
|-Goias||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Maranhao||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Mato Grosso do Sul||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Minas Gerais||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|-Para||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Parana||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Pernambuco||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Rio de Janeiro||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Rio Grande do Sul||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Santa Catarina||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sao Paulo||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Chile||Widespread||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Colombia||Present||1980||Smith and Cermeli, 1979; Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Ecuador||Restricted distribution||Stoetzel, 1994a; Anon., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|French Guiana||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Guyana||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Paraguay||Widespread||Smith and Cermeli, 1979; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Peru||Widespread||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Suriname||Present||Smith and Cermeli, 1979; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Uruguay||Widespread||Stoetzel, 1994a; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Venezuela||Widespread||Smith and Cermeli, 1979; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Cyprus||Absent, invalid record||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Italy||Absent, invalid record||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Malta||Absent, invalid record||EPPO, 2014|
|Netherlands||Absent, confirmed by survey||NPPO of the Netherlands, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Portugal||Restricted distribution||1994||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Madeira||Widespread||1994||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Spain||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Australia||Widespread||****||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-New South Wales||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Queensland||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-South Australia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Tasmania||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Victoria||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|-Western Australia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Cook Islands||Present||Blackman and Eastop, 1984; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Fiji||Present||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|French Polynesia||Present||Wong et al., 1997|
|New Zealand||Restricted distribution||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Papua New Guinea||Present||CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Samoa||Present||Essig, 1949; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Solomon Islands||Present||APPPC, 1987; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
|Tonga||Present||Carver et al., 1993; CABI/EPPO, 1998; EPPO, 2014|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page Primary hosts of T. citricida are citrus and citrus relatives (Rutaceae) (Order Geraniales, Suborder Geraniineae, mostly in the Subfamily Aurantiodeae, Tribe Citreae). Typically, Aurantioideae are trees or shrubs with evergreen leaves. Flowers are usually white and often fragrant. Many genera bear subglobose fruit with a green, yellow, or orange peel with numerous oil glands that result in a nice aroma when handled. Most commercial citrus varieties and rootstocks are good hosts of T. citricida. In addition, relatives such as calamondin (x Citrofortunella microcarpa) and orange jessamine (Murraya paniculata), rough lemon (Citrus jambhiri), sour orange (C. auranticum), box orange (Severiana buxifolia) and lime berry (Triphasia trifolia) can support T. citricida. There are reports that T. citricida has been collected on many non-citrus plants (Essig, 1949) and Barbados cherry (Malpighia glabra) (Ponte et al., 1998), however, there is no verification that these are reproductive hosts capable of sustaining a population of the aphid. These reports may have resulted from misidentification of aphids. Records from potato and sweet peppers may be from plants growing near Citrus.
The aphid may be able to survive on some non-rutaceous hosts temporarily as they migrate away from a crowded food source (Yokomi et al., 1994). Athough Rutaceae are the preferred hosts, large colonies of apterae are often found on very different plants including Pyracantha (Rosaceae) in Malawi and Zimbabwe; Cudramia (Moraceae) in China and Australia; tea in the Seychelles; and Maclura (Moraceae) in Java.
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
|Citrus aurantiifolia (lime)||Rutaceae||Main|
|Citrus limon (lemon)||Rutaceae||Main|
|Citrus maxima (pummelo)||Rutaceae||Main|
|Citrus nobilis (tangor)||Rutaceae||Main|
|Citrus reticulata (mandarin)||Rutaceae||Main|
|Citrus reticulata x paradisi (tangelo)||Rutaceae||Main|
|Citrus sinensis (navel orange)||Rutaceae||Main|
|Citrus unshiu (satsuma)||Rutaceae||Main|
|Citrus x paradisi (grapefruit)||Rutaceae||Main|
Growth StagesTop of page Seedling stage
SymptomsTop of page New, tender shoots are vulnerable to T. citricida colonization and support rapid population build-up. Aphids are external feeders and extract plant sap from the host by penetrating their stylets into the phloem. Excess plant sap is excreted as honeydew which supports sooty mould growth. Heavy infestation by T. citricida is noted when growing points of citrus are covered by the dark-coloured aphid and the flush bends under the physical weight of the colony. Aphid-tending ants are often present with T. citricida, and collect honeydew. When disturbed, T. citricida populations sway rapidly in unison, making stridulatory movements with their hind legs presumably to fend off their enemies. Flowers are not a preferred host tissue, and mature leaves, stems and fruit cannot sustain T. citricida populations.
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Leaves / honeydew or sooty mould|
|Leaves / honeydew or sooty mould|
Species VectoredTop of page Citrus tristeza virus (citrus tristeza)
Papaya ringspot virus
Watermelon mosaic virus (watermelon mosaic)
Biology and EcologyTop of page T. citricida only feeds on newly developed terminals including unexpanded and young expanded leaves and flower buds of citrus and citrus relatives. New shoots generally last 10 days in summer in southern Florida, and 10-16 days in autumn and spring. Once the tissue becomes unfavourable for feeding, the colonies produce alate adults for dispersal, and the remaining nymphs either die or leave the trees searching for other branches or trees. The dispersal of nymphs from one tree to another by crawling a distance of up to 8-12 m is often observed. T. citricida is a colonizer species and is not a strong flyer; long distance disperal is mostly aided by wind current. Alate adults could, therefore, play an important role in the epidemiology of Citrus tristeza virus. However, there is no information available on the percentage of viruliferous alates in a given population during the dispersal period. In countries such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Kenya, Taiwan and Japan, two distinct population peaks per year are observed in the spring and autumn. A 2-year field survey conducted in a citrus grove in southern Florida indicated that there were two major peaks of T. citricida populations per year. The peaks did not fall on the same months each year, they were solely dependent on the rainfall of the preceding months (Tsai, 1999). T. citricida is anholocyclic and thelytokous throughout most of its range, preferring warm climates. It can, however, tolerate colder areas such as southern Japan by developing a holocyclic stage and overwintering as eggs (Komazaki, 1993). Development time is temperature dependent. At 20°C, T. citricida has a nymphal development time of 6-8 days with an average pre-reproductive period of 8.1 days, longevity is 28.4 days. Fecundity is 58.5 offspring/female with an intrinsic rate of natural increase of 0.36, net reproductive rate of 56.2, and mean generation time of 11.2 days. Its thermal threshold is 8.4°C and it required 125 degree days for development (Komazaki, 1982). Takanashi (1989) reported slightly longer generation time under similar conditions and differentiated between alata and aptera development time. The developmental periods of immature stages of T. citricida in an insectary ranged from 63.1 days at 8°C to 5.5 days at 30°C when eight constant temperatures (8, 10, 15, 20, 25, 28, 30 and 32°C) were evaluated. The lower developmental threshold for the T. citricida immature was estimated at 6.27°C. An upper temperature threshold for the development of the nymph (31.17°C) was determined from a nonlinear biophysical model. The percentage survival of the immature stages varied from 81 to 97% within the temperature range 8-30°C but survival was reduced to 29% at 32°C. The average longevity of adult females ranged from 60 days at 10°C to 6.5 days at 32°C. The average progeny per female was 52.5 at 20°C and 7.5 at 32°C. The largest intrinsic rate of increase (rm)(0.3765) occurred at 28°C. Populations reared at 10 and 32°C had the lowest rm values of 0.0588 and 0.0960, respectively. The mean generation time of the population ranged from 51 days at 10°C to 8 days at 32°C. The optimal temperature range for population growth of T. citricida was 20-30°C (Tsai and Wang, 1999). Winged morphs develop when populations become crowded and/or food source declines in quality and disperse in search of new hosts to begin new colonies. A spring and a fall flight peak of T. citricida occur in South Africa (Schwartz, 1965), Australia (Carver, 1978) and Brazil (Nickel et al., 1984). In Japan, T. citricida populations peak three times per year but can be found on citrus in all seasons, except when overwintering (Komazaki, 1993). Because the host range of the aphid is restricted to citrus and its relatives (all relatively non-cold hardy), it is unlikely that the aphid can exist outside citrus-growing areas or climates. Host plants have an effect on the development, survival, longevity and reproduction of T. citricida. The percentages of immatures surviving at 25±1°C on rough lemon (Citrus jambhiri), sour orange (C. aurantium), grapefruit (C. paradisi), key lime (C. aurantifolia), box orange (Severinia buxifolia), calamondin (x Citrofortunella microcarpa), lime berry (Triphasia trifolia) and orange jassamine (Murraya paniculata) were 82.0, 93.5, 93.3, 88.3, 53.1, 86.5, 41.6 and 62.8%, respectively. Developmental times for the immature stages among populations were similar (5.9-6.2 days) on rough lemon, sour orange, grapefruit and key lime. Longer developmental periods (6.5-7.2 days) occurred on box orange, calamondin, lime berry and orange jassamine. The average number of nymphs reproduced per female were 58.8, 43.0, 34.1, 42.5, 32.7, 17.7, 20.8 and 23.0 on sour orange, grapefruit, key lime, rough lemon, calamondin, box orange, lime berry and orange jassamine, respectively. Female adults lived an average of 22.1, 19.5, 17.5, 18.0, 22.8, 16.3, 22.6 and 14.6 days on these hosts. The intrinsic rate of natural increase (rm) for T. citricida was highest on grapefruit. Estimates of rm varied from 0.381 on grapefruit to 0.183 on lime berry. The mean population generation time on these hosts ranged from 9.7 to 12.2 days (Tsai, 1998).
The major impact of T. citricida is due to its efficient transmission of Citrus tristeza virus (CTV) (Costa and Grant, 1951; Yokomi et al., 1994), a phloem-limited closterovirus (Bar-Joseph and Lee, 1989). Two types of CTV strains are economically important: those that cause decline of citrus budded onto sour orange (Citrus aurantium) rootstock; and those that cause stem pitting of grapefruit and sweet orange regardless of rootstock. Both are readily transmissible by T. citricida.
CTV is semipersistently transmitted by citrus aphids (Raccah et al., 1976). Aphids acquire virus from an infected trees with feeding times as short as 5-10 min; transmission efficiency increases with feeding times up to 24 h. There is no latent period and the virus does not multiply or circulate in the aphid. The time required to inoculate a plant is the same as for acquisition. The aphid is capable of spreading the virus for 24-48 hours without reacquisition (Meneghini, 1948). T. citricida also transmits Citrus vein enation (woody gall) virus, a probable luteovirus (da Graça and Maharaj, 1991), Cowpea aphid-borne mosaic virus, a potyvirus affecting groundnut in Brazil (Pio-Reheiro et al., 2000) and Celosia mosaic virus, a potyvirus affecting Celosea argentea in Nigeria (Owolabi et al., 1998). Migrating populations of T. citricida are also associated with the spread of certain nonpersistently-transmitted viruses such as Chilli veinal mottle virus (Blackman and Eastop, 1984) and Soybean mosaic virus in China (Halbert et al., 1986).
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page Most of the reported natural enemies of T. citricida are predators. If predators are present in or adjacent to the citrus grove when T. citricida colonies are forming, they can be effective even when aphid levels are low. Recently in Puerto Rico, predators, especially coccinellids, were observed decimating small T. citricida colonies and eliminating or reducing and/or delaying winged aphid production (Michaud, 1996). Tao and Chiu (1971) point out that T. citricida is toxic to many predators.
The principal primary parasitoids of T. citricida are solitary endophagous Hymenoptera in the families Aphidiidae and Aphelinidae. The aphidiids are wasp-like in appearance and, at pupation, produce a mummy with a typical crusty golden, swollen appearance. They range in adult size from one to several millimetres. Adult Aphelinids are usually less than 1 mm, possess reduced wing venation and an abdomen which appears broadly attached to the thorax. They turn an aphid into a black mummy. Female adult aphelinids also feed on aphid haemolymph, a behaviour that is essential for completion of oogenesis. In Taiwan, T. citricida is parasitized by Lipolexis gracilis and L. scutellaris (Tao and Chiu, 1971), whereas in Australia it is parasitized by Aphelinus gossypii (Carver, 1978). In Japan, Lysiphlebia japonica is the principal parasitoid of T. citricida (Kato, 1970; Takanashi, 1990). In China, Lysiphlebia mirzai is a common parasitoid of T. citricida (Liu and Tsai, 2002).
Entomopathogenic fungi attack T. citricida and can decimate a population with dramatic speed. A critical requirement for efficacy of such fungi is high humidity. This is especially true when using Beauveria bassiana, Paecilomyces fumosoroseus and Metarhizium anisopliae against T. citricida (Poprawski et al., 1999). Verticillium lecanii has been reported to attack T. citricida in Venezuela (Rondón et al., 1980) and other fungi have been observed associated with the aphid in South Africa (Samways, 1984).
ImpactTop of page T. citricida is the most important of the six reported aphid species that transmit Citrus tristeza virus because of its high vector efficiency, prolific reproduction and dispersal timed with citrus flush cycles to maximize chances of acquiring and transmitting the virus. High populations of aphids during bloom periods can cause direct damage to citrus (Hall and Ford, 1933). The major damage associated with T. citricida, however, is the transmission and spread of severe strains of CTV. Such strains cause rapid decline and death of citrus trees planted on sour orange (C. aurantium) rootstock regardless of tree age. The most virulent strains of CTV cause stem pitting in twigs, branches and trunks of citrus trees regardless of rootstock. Stem pitting CTV weakens a tree and reduces fruit size, quality and quantity. This occurs over a period of 6 to 25 years, depending on the virulence and challenge level of CTV. Grapefruit cultivars are most sensitive to stem pitting but sweet orange varieties (e.g. Pera) are also susceptible; mandarins are most tolerant.
T. citricida was the vector responsible for the rapid spread of CTV decline that caused death of many tens of millions of citrus trees (sour orange) in Brazil and Argentina in the 1930s and 1940s (Knorr and DuCharme, 1951) and in the 1970s in Colombia, Venezuela, and Peru over a 10-year period (Geraud, 1976; Lee et al., 1992). Currently in South Africa, T. citricida is spreading CTV strains that are so virulent that economic longevity of grapefruit has been shortened to 6-8 years even though it contains a cross-protecting CTV isolate (Marais et al., 1996). T. citricida was found to be 6 to 25 times more efficient in transmission of various CTV isolates than was Aphis gossypii (Yokomi et al., 1994). In Florida, USA, T. citricida is capable of separating severe strain (stem pitting strain) of CTV from the source plant affected with a mild strain of CTV following single aphid transmission (Tsai et al., 2000). Currently, there are an estimated 200 million citrus trees on sour orange rootstock worldwide and all are at immediate risk of CTV decline (Garnsey et al., 1996).
Detection and InspectionTop of page Field infestations of T. citricida can best be detected by periodic visual inspection of new shoot growth of citrus. Winged forms can be monitored by yellow traps or suction traps.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page T. citricida can be confused with Toxoptera aurantii, the black citrus aphid, because of its presence on citrus, dark brown-black coloration, size and the presence of stridulatory apparatus on the abdomen. However, alata of these aphids can be readily differentiated using a hand lens. T. citricida has antennae III entirely black, forewing pterostigma light brown and media vein twice branched; T. aurantii has antennae III, IV, V, and VI banded at joints, forewing pterostigma conspicuously dark blackish-brown and media vein once-branched. Wingless adults and nymphs are more difficult to distinguish. The easiest character on apterae is the antennae. T. aurantii antennae have several banded joints; whereas T. citricida antennae have one prominent band near the middle. Setal length and patterns can be used to differentiate the aphids but require higher magnification. The cauda of T. citricida is bushy with 25-40 setae; whereas that of T. aurantii is less bushy with 8-19 setae. Another black aphid that occurs on citrus is the cowpea aphid (Aphis craccivora). It can be distinguished by its strikingly white legs (knees of hind leg may be dark) and 7 caudal setae. See Stroyan (1961), Stoezel (1994a), and Halbert and Brown (1996) for full descriptions and keys of citrus aphids.
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Management of virus inoculum is the most important control strategy (Garnsey et al., 1996) because spread of severe strains of Citrus tristeza virus (CTV) is the major problem associated with T. citricida. The first factor to consider is the prevalence of CTV and its strains in a particular area. If virulent stem pitting strains and T. citricida are endemic, citrus scion varieties tolerant to CTV should be planted. These include mandarins, pummelos, tangelos and tangor. Only CTV-tolerant or resistant rootstock should be used. Avoid planting grapefruit or Pera sweet orange unless they have been pre-infected with a cross-protecting CTV strain. If CTV strains are less virulent than the previous scenario, sweet oranges and grapefruit, preferably pre-inoculated with a mild CTV isolate, can be grown with consideration for the market targeted (e.g. fresh fruit, domestic, export, juice, etc.). When CTV problems are anticipated, closer plant spacing should be considered to maximize land use during the grove's early years. Trees that decline or become stunted can either be replaced or simply removed and neighbouring trees allowed to fill in.
Close plant spacing is becoming a common practice in new groves in the USA. Tree size is managed by mechanical hedgers that trim the sides and tops of trees. This practice produces conditions excellent for CTV spread and allows tree canopies to touch in the direction of the row. Pruning induces new shoot growth in which CTV multiplication is optimal as long as temperature and moisture are favourable. Citrus aphid migration, including that of T. citricida, peak in spring and autumn (Carver, 1978; Schwartz, 1965). Hence the uniform growth that results from pruning maximizes opportunities for CTV acquisition and inoculation.
If CTV incidence is undetectable or mild and T. citricida is not established in a particular region, citrus trees grafted on sour orange rootstock may still be acceptable (Garnsey et al., 1996). This decision depends on the risk of losses due to CTV versus the advantages gained by the use of sour orange (e.g. salinity, cold hardiness, Phytophthora, high soil pH, poor drainage). Several areas have managed CTV by eradication of infected trees (for example in Israel and California). This programme is cost effective if virus incidence is low and spread is slow (Garnsey et al., 1996).
Regardless of the present CTV/aphid vector situation, a citrus budwood certification programme is essential for a good citrus industry. CTV and all other citrus virus and virus-like agents are readily graft transmissible. Diagnostic methods are available for testing and detection of citrus pathogens in budwood sources. Recent developments in serology and molecular biology allow some rapid evaluation of pathogen virulence. Thermotherapy and shoot tip grafting are now standard methods to eliminate pathogens from budwood. If a cross-protective CTV isolates are available, they can be incorporated into the budwood certification programme.
Although natural enemies are important in regulating aphid populations, they alone may not be satisfactory for controlling plant virus diseases. Aphid populations on citrus are often too variable to provide sufficient natural enemies for effective vector control. One concept is to direct biological control activities to reduce migrant vector populations before they spread through susceptible crops (Mackauer, 1976). Given that alternative prey are available, natural enemies could reduce T. citricida populations to mitigate secondary spread of CTV (tree to tree within a field), especially if conservation and augmentation efforts are used. In Japan, Lysiphlebia japonica is the most important parasitoid of T. citricida (Takanashi, 1990). However, this parasite was imported and released in southern Florida with no success (Deng and Tsai, 1998). In China, Lysiphlebus mirzai is a common parasitoid of T. citricida (Liu and Tsai, 2002). In South America, various natural enemies have been observed attacking T. citricida but none has been used for augmentation in a biological control programme.
Lysiphlebus testaceipes was found attacking T. citricida in Puerto Rico, Cuba and southern Florida (Yokomi and Tang, 1996; Ravelo and Triana-Fernandez, 1997; Evans and Stange, 1997) but the rate of parasitism was low, as was previously observed in Australia (Carver, 1984). Murakami et al. (1984) did not find effective parasitoids of T. citricida in the Cerrados region of Brazil and suggested that L. japonica be imported and released against T. citricida. T. citricida was introduced in south Florida in the later half of 1995 and spread to all citrus-growing areas in just 3-4 years. Assuming that biological agents colonize new areas more slowly than their hosts, multiple augmentative releases of mass-reared parasitoids at various sites should be conducted (Wellings, 1994). A classical biological control effort undertaken using this strategy in Florida with the release of L. japonica and Aphelinus spiraecolae (Tang et al., 1996) has not been successful.
As most predators are generalist feeders, presence of alternative prey provides stability to their contribution as biological control agents. The spirea aphid Aphis spiraecola is a cosmopolitan species with a wide host range and is quick to colonize new citrus shoots (Cole, 1925; Miller, 1929; Tsai and Wang, 2001). This aphid also develops large populations rapidly on citrus which attracts predators. If T. citricida arrive when these predators are present, they readily attack T. citricida. However, if predators discover a T. citricida population shortly after colonization, their probability of establishment is low without alternative prey as another food source (Michaud, 1996). Several predators including lacewings (Chrysoperla plorabunda), syrphid fly (Pseudodorus clavatus) and coccinellid beetles (Coelophora inaequalis, Coccinella septempunctata, Cycloneda sanguinea, Harmonia axyridis, Hippodamia convergens, Olla v-nigrum and Coleomegilla maculata fuscilabris) have been evaluated in the field and laboratory with varying degrees of success (Michaud, 1999, 2000, 2001; Wang and Tsai, 2001).
There is limited information available on the host range of T. citricida and it is unknown if any citrus cultivars or citrus relatives are resistant to the aphid.
Insecticidal control of T. citricida to slow spread of CTV is an unproven strategy. Although insecticides may not act quickly enough to prevent primary infection by viruliferous aphids, reduction of aphid populations would decrease secondary spread. Its effectiveness depends on longevity of suppression and extent of the treated area in relation to inoculum reservoir and migratory activity of the aphid (Knapp et al., 1996). It should be cautioned that use of foliar insecticides can interfere with biological control agents and, ultimately, their use to protect citrus (a perennial crop) is temporary. In the continental USA, most CTV spread occurs during spring and autumn when temperatures are mild. This is concomitant with when CTV titre (virus replication) in infected citrus trees is highest and when shoot growth and migration of T. citricida peak. Therefore, this time frame should be targeted if chemical control is attempted. Several systemic insecticides including acephate imidacloprid and acetamiprid have been used against T. citricida with various residual effects (Yamamoto et al., 2000; Tsai, 1999). A recent study showed that neem seed extract (azadirachtin) had a marked effect on the survival, longevity and fecundity of T. citricida but not its parasitoid Lysiphlebus testaceipes (Tang et al., 2002).
CTV is transmitted only by vectors that colonize citrus because it is phloem-limited. Thus, its epidemiology resembles persistently transmitted viruses more in this regard than nonpersistently transmitted viruses. As vector control has been shown to limit spread of some luteoviruses (Gourmet et al., 1994) it could be expected to have some impact on CTV spread. However, no data exist to recommend chemical control for CTV control.
Integrated Pest Management
It is not clear what level of vector control is necessary to reduce spread of CTV. The typical integrated pest management (IPM) approaches do not apply for CTV control. Economic thresholds are contingent both on T. citricida population and CTV inoculum pressure. Host-plant resistance to the aphid is not available. A unique management strategy must be practised for CTV in the presence of T. citricida. A strong regulatory component is necessary, covering both propagation and inoculum control (detection and removal of wild and possibly urban reservoirs of CTV) (Garnsey et al., 1996; Halbert and Brown, 1996). Management (conservation and/or augmentation) of biological control agents is feasible. Insecticidal control of vector populations may be useful in specific situations such as in a citrus nursery, or to protect budwood sources. Some value may result from the use of selective insecticides working in tandem with natural enemies. In the final analysis, vector management should be one component of a disease management strategy including other available elements such as mild strain cross-protection; tolerant rootstocks; regulatory measures, isolation or protection of nursery stock; and citrus scions with tolerance or resistance to CTV (Garnsey et al., 1996). In areas where T. citricida and severe (stem pitting) strain of CTV are endemic, the practice of using mild CTV strain to cross protect the subseqent infection of stem pitting strain has been carried out on a commercial basis in South Africa, Australia, Brazil, Peru, Reunion Island, India and Japan (Rocha-Pena et al., 1995; Bederski and Aubert, 1999).
ReferencesTop of page
Abate T, 1988. The identity and bionomics of insect vectors of tristeza and greening diseases of citrus in Ethiopia. Trop. Pest Management, 34:19-23.
Aguiar AMF; Fernandes A; Ilharco FA, 1994. On the sudden appearance and spread of the black citrus aphid Toxoptera citricidus (Kirkaldy), (Homoptera: Aphidoidea) on the island of Madeira. Bocagiana Museu Municipal do Funchal (História Natural), 168:1-7.
Anon., 1995. Survey on Toxoptera citricidus and citrus tristeza in Central America and Caribbean. CARAPHIN News, 12: 12-13.
APPPC, 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).
Aubert B; Etienne J; Cottin R; Leclant F; Cao Van P; Vuillaume C; Jaramillo C; Barbeau G, 1992. Citrus tristeza disease, a new threat for the Caribbean basin. Report of a survey to Colombia, Dominican Republic, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Trinidad. Fruits (Paris), 47(3):393-404; 13 ref.
Bederski K, 1999. Selection of Peruvian tolerant budlines containing protective stem-pitting CTV isolates. Proceedings 5th World Congress of the International Society of Citrus Nurserymen, Montpellier, France, 5-8 March, 1997., 281-285; 7 ref.
Costa AS; Grant TJ, 1951. Studies on transmission of the tristeza virus by the vector, Aphis citricidus. Phytopathology, 41:105-113.
da Garta JV; Maharaj SB, 1991. Citrus vein enation virus, a probable luteovirus. In: Brlansky RH, Lee RF, Timmer LW, eds. Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Organization of Citrus Virologists. Riverside, California, USA: IOCV, 391-394.
Deng YongXue; Tsai JH, 1998. Development of Lysiphlebia japonica (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae), a parasitoid of Toxoptera citricida (Homoptera: Aphididae) at five temperatures. Florida Entomologist, 81(3):415-423; 19 ref.
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
Essig EO, 1949. Aphids in relation to quick decline tristeza of citrus. Pan-Pacific Entomol., 25:13-23.
Etienne J; Vilardebo A, 1978. Notes sur les principaux ravageurs des argumes de l'île de La Réunion. Fruits, 33:873-876.
Evans GA; Stange LA, 1997. Parasitoids associated with the brown citrus aphid, Toxoptera citricida, in Florida (Insecta: Hymenoptera). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Entomology Circular #384.
Garnsey SM; Gottwald TR; Yokomi RK, 1996a. Control strategies for citrus tristeza virus. In: Hadidi A, Khetarpal RK, Koganezawa H, eds. Plant Viral Disease Control: Principles and Practices. St. Paul, USA: APS Press, (in press).
Geraud F, 1976. El Alfido negro de los citricos, Toxoptera citricida Kirkaldy en Venezuela (Resumen) 1. Encveatro Venezolano de Entomologia. Univ. Central de Venezuela, Facultad de Agronomia. Inst. Zool. Agric. Maracay.
Gourmet C; Hewings AD; Kolb FL; Smyth CA, 1994. Effect of imidacloprid on nonflight movement of Rhopalosiphum padi and the subsequent spread of barley yellow dwarf virus. Plant Disease, 78(11):1098-1101
Government of Saint Lucia, 2012. Dengue Fever Alert - Fight the Aedes aegypti Mosquito!. http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/agencies/health/alerts/dengue_fever_alert_-_fight_the_ades_aegypti_mosquito!.htm
Halbert SE, 1995. Entomology Section: Citrus. Tri-ology, 34(5).
Halbert SE, 1996. Entomology Section: Citrus. Tri-ology 35(2). (In press).
Halbert SE; Brown LG, 1996. Toxoptera citricida (Kirkaldy), brown citrus aphid - identification, biology and management strategies. Fla. Dept. Agric. & Cons. Serv, Div. Plant Industry, Entomol. Cir. No. 374.
Halbert SE; Zhang GX; Pu ZQ, 1986. Comparison of sampling methods for alate aphids and observations on epidemiology of soybean mosaic virus in Nanjing, China. Annals of Applied Biology, 109(3):473-483
Hall WJ; Ford WK, 1933. Notes on some citrus insects of southern Rhodesia. British South Africa Co., Mazce Citrus Expt. Station Publ. 2a.
Heileman S, 2007. Thematic Report for the Insular Caribbean Sub-Region, CLME Project Implementation Unit. Thematic Report for the Insular Caribbean Sub-Region, CLME Project Implementation Unit. Cave Hill Campus, Barbados: CERMES, University of the West Indies. http://ioc3.unesco.org/iocaribe/files/clme/Final%20Preliminary%20TDA%20for%20the%20Insular%20%20Caribbean%20Subregion.pdf
Kato T, 1970. Efficiency of Lysiphlebus japonicus Ashmead (Hymenoptera, Aphidiidae) in control of the citrus aphid, Toxoptera citricidus Kirkaldy, infesting citrus young shoots in summer. Odökon-Chûgoku, 12:1-6.
Ke C; Garnsey SM; Tsai JH, 1984. A survey of citrus tristeza virus in China by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. In: Garnsey SM, ed. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of International Organization of Citrus Virologists, Riverside, California, 70-76.
Kirkaldy GW, 1907. On some peregrine Aphidae in Oahu (Hemiptera). Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. Soc., 1:99-102.
Knapp; JL; Browning HW; Lee RF; Stansly PA, 1996. The brown citrus aphid. Citrus tristeza virus relationship and management guidelines for Florida citrus. Citrus Indus., 77:12-14, 16.
Knorr LC; DuCharme EP, 1951. This is tristeza- Ravager of Argentina's citrus industry. Citrus Mag., 13:17-19.
Knorr LC; Shah SM, 1971. World citrus problems V. Nepal. FAO Plant Prot. Bull., 19:73-79.
Komazaki S, 1982. Effects of constant temperatures on population growth of three aphid species, Toxoptera citricidus (Kirkaldy), Aphis citricola van der Goot and Aphis gossypii Glover (Homoptera: Aphididae) on citrus. Applied Entomology and Zoology, 17(1):75-81
Komazaki S, 1993. Biology and virus transmission of citrus aphids. Technical Bulletin - Food and Fertilizer Technology Center Taipei, Taiwan; Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific Region (FFTC, ASPAC), No. 136:ii + 9 pp.
Lastra R; Meneses R; Still PE; Niblett; CL, 1991. The citrus tristeza situation in Central America. In: Brlansky RH, Lee RF, Timmer LW, eds. Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Organization of Citrus Virologists. Riverside, CA, USA: IOCV, 146-149.
Lee RF; Roistacher CN; Niblett CL; Lastra R; Rocha-Pe_a M; Garnsey SM; Yokomi RK; Gumpf DJ; Dodds JA, 1992. Presence of Toxoptera citricidus in Central America: a threat to citrus in Florida and the United States. Citrus Ind., 73:13-24, 62, 63.
Liu JianFeng; Deng Xian; Yang MaoFa; Sang WeiJun; Song QiongZhang; Hu JiFeng; Yang JiaLin, 2012. Investigation on insect pests and their natural enemies of Evodia rutaecarpa in Guizhou. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences, No.9:133-135, 139.
Liu YH; Tsai JH, 2002. Effect of temperature on development, survivorship and fecundity Lysiphlebia mirzaii (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Environmental Entomology, 31(2), in press.
Mackauer M, 1976. Myzus persicae Sulz., an aphid of world importance. In: Delucchi VL, ed. Studies in Biological Control. International Biological Programme 9. Cambridge Univ. Press, 51-119.
Marais; LJ; Marais ML; Rea M, 1996. Effect of citrus tristeza stem pitting on fruit size and yield of Marsh grapefruit in southern Africa. In: Moreno P, da Grata JV, Yokomi RK, eds. Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the International Organization of Citrus Virologists. Riverside, CA: IOCV. (In press).
Martins Ddos S; Ventura JA; Paula Rde CAL; Fornazier MJ; Rezende JAM; Culik MP; Ferreira PSF; Peronti ALBG; Carvalho RCZde; Sousa-Silva CR, 2016. Aphid vectors of Papaya ringspot virus and their weed hosts in orchards in the major papaya producing and exporting region of Brazil. Crop Protection, 90:191-196. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02612194
Michaud JP, 1996. Observations on the natural enemies of brown citrus aphid in Puerto Rico. Citrus Industry, 77:39-41.
Michaud JP, 2000. Development and reproduction of ladybeetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) on the citrus aphids Aphis spiraecola Patch and Toxoptera citricida (Kirkaldy) (Homoptera: Aphididae). Biological Control, 18(3):287-297; 35 ref.
Michaud JP, 2001. Evaluation of green lacewings, Chrysoperla plorabunda (Fitch) (Neurop., Chrysopidae), for augmentative release against Toxoptera citricida (Hom., Aphididae) in citrus. Journal of Applied Entomology, 125(7):383-388; 20 ref.
Michaud JP; Belliure B, 2001. Impact of syrphid predation on production of migrants in colonies of the brown citrus aphid, Toxoptera citricida (Homoptera: Aphididae). Biological Control, 21(1):91-95; 23 ref.
Miller RL, 1929. A contribution to the biology and control of the green citrus aphid, Aphis spiraecola Patch. Fla. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull., 203:431-476.
Nickel O; Klingauf F; Fischer HU, 1984. Transmission of citrus tristeza virus (CTV) from "Declinamiento"-diseased sweet orange trees on trifoliate orange rootstocks and its epidemiology in relation to the flight activity of the vector, Toxoptera citricida Kirk. (Homoptera: Aphididae) in Misiones, Argentina. In: Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Organization of Citrus Virologists. Riverside, CA, USA: IOCV, 28-32.
Owolabi TA; Taiwo MA; Thottappilly GA; Shoyinka SA; Proll E; Rabenstein F, 1998. Properties of a virus causing mosaic and leaf curl disease of Celosia argentea L. in Nigeria. Acta Virologica, 42(3):133-139; 27 ref.
Ponte JJda; Silveira Filho J; Holanda YCA; Andrade NC, 1998. Pests of the Barbados cherry plant in the State of Cearß and their control with manipueira. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 20(1):100-103; 8 ref.
Poprawski TJ; Parker PE; Tsai JH, 1999. Laboratory and field evaluation of hyphomycete insect pathogenic fungi for control of brown citrus aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae). Environmental Entomology, 28(2):315-321; 31 ref.
Prunthi HS; Mani MS, 1945. Our knowledge of the insect and mite pests of citrus in India and their control. Imp. Coun. Agric. Res. Sci., Mong. No. 16.
Rocha-Pena MA; Lee RF; Lastra R; Niblett CL; Ochoa-Corona FM; Garnsey SM; Yokomi RK, 1995. Citrus tristeza virus and its aphid vector Toxoptera citricida: threats to citrus production in the Caribbean and Central and North America. Plant Disease, 79(5):437-445
Rond¢n GA; Arnal E; Godoy F, 1980. Comportamiento del Verticillium lecanii (Zimm.) Viegas, Patogeno del afido Toxoptera citricidus (Kirk.). Agronomia Tropical, 30:201-212.
Samways MJ, 1984. Assessment of the fungus Cladosporium sp. near oxysporum (Berk. and Curt.) as a biocontrol agent for certain Homoptera. Entomol. Section. Outspan Citrus Centre, South African Coop. Citrus Exchange, Annual Report, July 1982-July 1984. Nelsruit, South Africa: Outspan Citrus Centre.
Schwartz RE, 1965. Aphid-borne virus diseases of citrus and their vectors in South Africa. B. Flight activity of citrus aphids. S. Afr. Agric. Sci., 8:931-940.
Seco MV; Remaudiere G; Nieto JM, 1992. Graphic representations of the flight curves of alate aphids (Hom.: Aphidoidea) caught in traps: a new proposal. Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France, 28(3):241-249
Smith CF; Cermeli MM, 1979. An annotated list of Aphididae (Homoptera) of the Caribbean Islands and South and Central America. Technical Bulletin, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, No. 259:[+]131 pp.
Stoetzel MB, 1994. Aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) of potential importance on Citrus in the United States with illustrated keys to species. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 96(1):74-90
Stroyan HLG, 1961. Identification of aphids living on citrus. FAO Plant Prot. Bull., 9:44-65.
Takanashi M, 1989. The reproductive ability of apterous and alate viviparous morphs of the citrus brown aphid, Toxoptera citricidus (Kirkaldy) (Homoptera: Aphididae). Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology, 33(4):266-269
Takanashi M, 1990. Development and reproductive ability of Lysiphlebus japonicus Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae) parasitizing the citrus brown aphid, Toxoptera citricidus (Kirkaldy) (Homoptera: Aphidiidae). Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology, 34(3):237-243
Tang YQ; Weathersbee AA; Mayer RT, 2002. Effect of neem seed extract on the brown citrus aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) and its parasitoid Lysiphlebus testaceipes (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Environmental Entomology, 31(1):172-176.
Tao CC; Chiu SC, 1971. Biological control of citrus, vegetables and tobacco aphids. The Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Special Publication No. 10, 1-110.
Thouvenel J-C; Fauquet C, 1977. A mosaic of yam (Dioscorea cayenensis) caused by a filamentous virus in the Ivory Coast. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances de l'Academie des Sciences, D, 284(19):1947-1949
Tsai IN; Wang KH, 1999. Life table study of brown citrus aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) at different temperatures. Environmental Entomology, 28(3):412-419.
Tsai JH, 1999. Biology and control of brown citrus aphid (Toxoptera citricida) and citrus tristeza virus in Florida. In: Sivapragasam A, et al., eds. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Plant Protection in the Tropics. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 383-386.
Tsai JH; Chen ZY; Shen CY; Jin KX, 1988. Mycoplasmas and fastidious vascular prokaryotes associated with tree diseases in China. Tree mycoplasmas and mycoplasma diseases [edited by Hiruki, C.] Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; University of Alberta Press, 69-77
Tsai JH; Chen ZY; Shen CY; Jin KX, 1988. Mycoplasmas and fastidious vascular prokaryotes associated with tree diseases in China. Tree mycoplasmas and mycoplasma diseases [edited by Hiruki, C.] Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; University of Alberta Press, 69-77
Tsai JH; Liu YH; Wang JJ; Lee, 2000. Recovery of orange stem pitting strains of citrus tristeza virus (CTV) following single aphid transmission with Toxoptera citricida from a Florida decline isolate of CTV. Proceedings of Florida State Horticultural Society, 113:75-78.
Tsai JH; Wang JJ, 2001. Effects of host plants on biology and life table parameters of Aphis spiraecola (Homoptera: Aphididae). Environmental Entomology, 30(1):44-50.
Wang JinJun; Tsai JH, 2001. Development and functional response of Coelophora inaequalis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) feeding on brown citrus aphid, Toxoptera citricida (Homoptera: Aphididae). Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 3(1):65-69; 32 ref.
Waterhouse DF, 1993. The Major Arthropod Pests and Weeds of Agriculture in Southeast Asia. ACIAR Monograph No. 21. Canberra, Australia: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, 141 pp.
Yamamoto PT; Roberto SR; Pria WDJr, 2000. Systemic insecticides applied on citrus tree trunk to control Oncometopia facialis, Phyllocnistis citrella and Toxoptera citricida. Scientia Agricola, 57(3):415-420; 22 ref.
Yokomi RK; Lastra R; Stoetzel MB; Damsteegt VD; Lee RF; Garnsey SM; Gottwald TR; Rocha-Pena MA; Niblett CL, 1994. Establishment of the brown citrus aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) in Central America and the Caribbean Basin and transmission of citrus tristeza virus. Journal of Economic Entomology, 87(4):1078-1085
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/