Toxicity of Three Insecticides to Lysiphlebus fabarum, a Parasitoid of the Black Bean Aphid, Aphis fabae

The toxicity of three insecticides to Lysiphlebus fabarum (Marshall) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae), a parasitoid of Aphis fabae Scopoli (Hemiptera: Aphididae), was investigated using IOBC/wprs protocols. Abamectin 1.8 EC, imidacloprid 350 SC, and pymetrozine 25 WP were tested under laboratory conditions at recommended field rates. Immature stages of the parasitoid were exposed to materials by briefly dipping mummified aphids into insecticide solutions/suspensions or water (controls). Abamectin, imidacloprid, and pymetrozine caused 44.8, 58.5, and 14.5% mortality of mummies, respectively. Insecticides were also applied to broad bean foliage until run-off using a hand sprayer and the contact toxicity of residues was investigated after 1, 5, 16 and 30 day periods of outdoor weathering by caging adult wasps on treated plants for 24 h. One day-old residues of abamectin, imidacloprid, and pymetrozine produced 52.5, 90.0 and 57.0% mortality, respectively, and 5 day-old residues produced 28.1, 77.0 and 18.6% mortality. Sixteen day-old residues produced 8.8, 22.4 and 13.6% mortality, whereas 30 day-old residues produced 0.0, 3.2 and 1.1% mortality, respectively. On the basis of these results, abamectin and pymetrozine were classified as short-lived compounds (Class A) and imidacloprid as a slightly persistent compound (Class B)

Ant Mimicry by an Aphid Parasitoid, Lysiphlebus fabarum

In Iran, Lysiphlebus fabarum (Marshall) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae) is a uniparental parasitoid of the black bean aphid, Aphis fabae Scopoli (Hemiptera: Aphididae), that possesses various highly evolved adaptations for foraging within ant-tended aphid colonies. Direct observations and video recordings were used to analyze the behavior of individual females foraging for A. fabae on bean leaf disks in open arenas in the laboratory. Females exploited aphids as hosts and as a source of food, allocating within-patch time as follows: resting - 10.4%, grooming - 8.2%, searching - 11.5%, antennation (host recognition) - 7.5%, antennation (honeydew solicitation mimicking ants) - 31.9%, abdominal bending (attack preparation) 19.7%, probing with the ovipositor (attack) - 10.8%. The mean handling time for each aphid encountered was 2.0 ± 0.5 min. Females encountered an average of 47.4 ± 6.4 aphids per hour, but laid only 1.2 eggs per hour. The ovipositor insertion time for parasitism ranged from 2 sec to longer than a minute, but most insertions did not result in an egg being laid. A. fabae defensive behaviors included kicking, raising and swiveling the body, and attempts to smear the attacker with cornicle secretions, sometimes with lethal results. Food deprivation for 4–6 h prior to testing increased the frequency of ant mimcry by L. fabarum. Females also used ant-like antennation to reduce A. fabae defensive behavior, e.g. the frequency of kicking. L. fabarum attacks primed A. fabae to be more responsive to subsequent honeydew solicitation, such that experienced females improved their feeding success by alternating between the roles of parasitoid and ant mimic. These results reveal the possibility for mutualisms to evolve between L. fabarum and the ant species that tend A. fabae, since L. fabarum receive ant protection for their progeny and may benefit the ants by improving A. fabae responsiveness to honeydew solicitation

Baubles, Bangles, and Biotypes: A Critical Review of the use and Abuse of the Biotype Concept

Pest species of insects are notoriously prone to escape the weapons deployed in management efforts against them. This is particularly true in herbivorous insects. When a previously successful tactic fails the insect population has apparently adapted to it and is often considered to be a new or distinct entity, and given the non-formal category ‘biotype’. The entities falling under the umbrella term ‘biotype’ are not consistent either within or between biotypes, and their underlying genetic composition and origins, while generally unknown, are likely heterogeneous within and variable between biotypes. In some cases race or species may be more appropriate referents. Some examples of applications of the concept in the context of host plant resistance are discussed. It is argued here that the term ‘biotype’ and its applications are overly simplistic, confused, have not proved useful in current pest management, and lack predictive power for future management

Effects of Vegetated Field Borders on Arthropods in Cotton Fields in Eastern North Carolina

The influence, if any, of 5m wide, feral, herbaceous field borders on pest and beneficial arthropods in commercial cotton, Gossypium hirsutum (L.) (Malvales: Malvaceae), fields was measured through a variety of sampling techniques over three years. In each year, 5 fields with managed, feral vegetation borders and five fields without such borders were examined. Sampling was stratified from the field border or edge in each field in an attempt to elucidate any edge effects that might have occurred. Early season thrips populations appeared to be unaffected by the presence of a border. Pitfall sampling disclosed no differences in ground-dwelling predaceous arthropods but did detect increased populations of crickets around fields with borders. Cotton aphid (Aphis gossypii Glover) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) populations were too low during the study to adequately assess border effects. Heliothines, Heliothis virescens (F.) and Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), egg numbers and damage rates were largely unaffected by the presence or absence of a border, although in one instance egg numbers were significantly lower in fields with borders. Overall, foliage-dwelling predaceous arthropods were somewhat more abundant in fields with borders than in fields without borders. Tarnished plant bugs, Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois) (Heteroptera: Miridae) were significantly more abundant in fields with borders, but stink bugs, Acrosternum hilare (Say), and Euschistus servus (Say) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) numbers appeared to be largely unaffected by border treatment. Few taxa clearly exhibited distributional edge effects relative to the presence or absence of border vegetation. Field borders like those examined in this study likely will have little impact on insect pest management in cotton under current insect management regimens