The importance of alternative host plants as reservoirs of the cotton leaf hopper, Amrasca devastans, and its natural enemies

Many agricultural pests can be harboured by alternative host plants but these can also harbour the pests’ natural enemies. We evaluated the capacity of non-cotton plant species (both naturally growing and cultivated) to function as alternative hosts for the cotton leaf hopper Amrasca devastans (Homoptera: Ciccadellidae) and its natural enemies. Forty-eight species harboured A. devastans. Twenty-four species were true breeding hosts, bearing both nymphal and adult A. devastans, the rest were incidental hosts. The crop Ricinus communis and the vegetables Abelmoschus esculentus and Solanum melongena had the highest potential for harbouring A. devastans and carrying it over into the seedling cotton crop. Natural enemies found on true alternative host plants were spiders, predatory insects (Chrysoperla carnea, Coccinellids, Orius spp. and Geocoris spp.) and two species of egg parasitoids (Arescon enocki and Anagrus sp.). Predators were found on 23 species of alternative host plants, especially R. communis. Parasitoids emerged from one crop species (R. communis) and three vegetable species; with 39 % of A. devastans parasitised. We conclude that the presence of alternative host plants provides both advantages and disadvantages to the cotton agro-ecosystem because they are a source of both natural enemy and pest species. To reduce damage by A. devastans, we recommend that weeds that harbour the pest should be removed, that cotton cultivation with R. communis, A. esculentus, and S. melongena should be avoided, that pesticides should be applied sparingly to cultivate alternative host plants and that cotton crops should be sown earlier

Butterfly larval host plant use in a tropical urban context: Life history associations, herbivory, and landscape factors

This study examines butterfly larval host plants, herbivory and related life history attributes within Nagpur City, India. The larval host plants of 120 butterfly species are identified and their host specificity, life form, biotope, abundance and perennation recorded; of the 126 larval host plants, most are trees (49), with fewer herbs (43), shrubs (22), climbers (7) and stem parasites (2). They include 89 wild, 23 cultivated, 11 wild/cultivated and 3 exotic plant species; 78 are perennials, 43 annuals and 5 biannuals. Plants belonging to Poaceae and Fabaceae are most widely used by butterfly larvae. In addition to distinctions in host plant family affiliation, a number of significant differences between butterfly families have been identified in host use patterns: for life forms, biotopes, landforms, perennation, host specificity, egg batch size and ant associations. These differences arising from the development of a butterfly resource database have important implications for conserving butterfly species within the city area. Differences in overall butterfly population sizes within the city relate mainly to the number of host plants used, but other influences, including egg batch size and host specificity are identified. Much of the variation in population size is unaccounted for and points to the need to investigate larval host plant life history and strategies as population size is not simply dependent on host plant abundance