FR005

Biology and management of field pests of

mangoes
Dr Ian Cunningham
Queensland Department of Primary
Industries
FROOS
This report is published by the Horticultural Research and
Development Corporation to pass on information
concerning horticultural research and development
undertaken for the mango industry.
The research contained in this report was funded by the
Horticultural Research and Development Corporation with
the financial support of the Queensland Fruit & Vegetable
Growers.
All expressions of opinion are not to be regarded as
expressing the opinion of the Horticultural Research and
Development Corporation or any authority of the
Australian Government.
The Corporation and the Australian Government accept
no responsibility for any of the opinions or the accuracy
of the information contained in this Report and readers
should rely upon their own inquiries in making decisions
concerning their own interests.
Cover Price $20.00
HRDC ISBN 1 86423 326 5
Published and Distributed by:
Horticultural Research and Development Corporation
Level 6
7 Merriwa Street
Gordon NSW 2072
Telephone: (02) 9418 2200
Fax: (02) 9418 1352
Copyright 1996
FINAL
REPORT
Biology studies and control of mango
pests in north Queensland
HRDC PROJECT FR005
QDPI Mareeba
I.C. Cunningham
S. DeFaveri
B. Pinese
August 1996
COLOUR PLATE
MANGO PESTS STUDIED FOR THIS REPORT
Colony of mango scale on leaf.
Female scales on fruit note the pink skin
discolouration due to the scale
Mango seed weevil, Sternochetus mangiferae adult
and larvae and damage to the seed cotyledons
arvae of mango tipborer Chlumetia euthystica
showing damage to terminal shoot
CONTENTS
Page
Colour plate
Summary 1
Industry 1
Technical 3
Recommendations 4
Extension/Adoption 4
Directions for future research 5
Financial/commercial benefits 5
Technical Report 6
Introduction 6
Materials and methods 8
Results 11
Discussion of results 17
Bibliography 21
1
SUMMARY
(I) INDUSTRY SUMMARY
The project involved field, laboratory and glasshouse studies towards development of
a sound pest management system for mangoes. Major emphasis was focused on the
two major pests, mango seed weevil (MSW) and mango scales. The former is a pest
of quarantine importance. Mango scales cause loss of tree vigour and fruit blemish.
Infested fruit are also unacceptable for export markets. A preliminary evaluation of
the impact on yield following mango tip borer damage was also undertaken.
The biology, ecology and control of these pests had not been researched in the rapidly
expanding mango growing areas of north Queensland. Surveys of mango fruit
revealed the heaviest infestations of MSW occurred in fruit from large urban trees.
Commercial orchards were either not infested or had lower infestation levels than
urban trees.
A sampling procedure was developed to detect MSW in orchards. Non-infested
orchards were issued with a phytosanitary certificate. Phytosanitary certificates were
useful in export market development.
The biology and ecology of MSW in north Queensland was elucidated through field
and laboratory life histories. Trapping of adults was attempted with unsatisfactory
results.
Insecticide screening trials to test the efficacy of several insecticides against MSW
were conducted. Insecticidal/cultural control was part of a strategy to reduce the risk
of spread of MSW to non-infested orchards and reduce populations in infected
orchards.
Fenvalerate (0.025% ai) applied as two cover sprays before and after flowering was
considered the preferred treatment. This pesticide reduced the populations of MSW to
2
low levels but did not eradicate the pest. Cultural methods for MSW control (removal
of fallen fruits) were found to be ineffective.
Insecticide screening trials were also conducted to test the efficacy of several
promising insecticides against mango scales. Data on scale mortality and survival of
beneficial insects was recorded. All treatments were equally effective and low
viscosity mineral oil (Lo-vis) and chlorpyrifos were registered for control of mango
scale.
3
(II) TECHNICAL SUMMARY
The project aimed to: 1. determine the incidence of mango seed weevil,
Stemochaetus mangiferae (Fabricius) in north Queensland and to develop fruit
sampling protocols to allow the issue of phytosanitary certificates; 2. develop a field
control spray programme for mango scales, Phenacaspis dilatata (Green) and
Aulacaspis tubercular is Newstead and to determine the level of natural control;
3. obtain registration of new products for control of mango scales and 4. determine
the impact of damage from the mango tip borer, Chlumetia euthysticha (Turner) on
fruit yield.
A sampling procedure using a 1:400 fruit sample was developed to detect the
presence/absence of weevils in orchards. This protocol was used as the basis for
issuing phytosanitary farm certificates to allow the development of export markets.
Fenvalerate (0.025% ai) sprays and cultural control methods (fruit removal) were
evaluated as methods for eradicating MSW but both of these techniques reduced the
incidence of the pest only.
Buprofezin was effective against mango scale for up to five months at 60 ml/100 L.
Buprofezin was also specific to the mango scale and therefore is superior to
methidathion. Imidachloprid was also tested but was not as effective as buprofezin
and methidathion. Sprays of low viscosity oil used alone and in conbination with low
rates of buprofezin (30 ml/lOOL) were not as effective as buprofezin used at the
higher rate. Imidachloprid as a foliar spray and as a paint treatment to the trunk was
not effective and appeared to cause an increase in scale.
Our results indicate that for best results, buprofezin should be applied when fruit is
pigeon egg size and again one month later.
Results from a tip removal experiment to simulate mango tip borer damage were
inconclusive due to erratic bearing of the test trees. Results tended to indicate that
yield responses were more sensitive to removal of the early flush (early February)
than the removal of the late flush (late March). The severity of tip removal (from 1 to
4
5 tips per shoot) did not provide consistant results in relation to yield. Size of
remaining shoots appeared to be unrelated to the level of prior shoot removal.
RECOMMENDATIONS
(I) EXTENSION / ADOPTION
(a) A 1:400 fruit sampling protocol can be adopted as a means of determining farm
freedom from mango seed weevil. Since farm freedom has been recognised by
exporters as a valid criteria for export of mangoes, this sampling procedure can be
used by growers wishing to enter markets where mango seed weevil is a quarantine
pest.
(b) Sprays of fenvalarate can be used to suppress field populations of mango seed weevil.
These may not result in eradication but sustained well timed applications over a
number of seasons may result in achieving farm freedom status.
(c) Mango scale can be controlled by individual sprays of low viscosity oil, chlorpyrifos
or buprofezin. Data from this project was used to support the registration of
chlorpyrifos against mango scale. Registration for buprofezin should be finalised for
the 1997.
5
(II) DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
(a) Although this project identified a range of native parasites and predators effective
against the mango scale, the level of control attributed to these beneficials is
inadequate. Augmentation via the introduction of exotic beneficials is considered
necessary if adequate levels of biological control are to be realised.
(b) Evaluate Chilocorus circumdatus as a mango scale predator.
(c) Improved knowledge of the seasonal population dynamics of mango scale and its
beneficial complex is essential to develop a more target oriented insecticide spray
programme.
(d) A collaborative research programme involving Australia and Thailand should be
undertaken to develop mutually acceptable area freedom and control protocols for
mango seed weevils to allow the expansion of mutually beneficial mango trade
between the two countries. This work will also be valuable in opening new markets
into other countries where mango seed weevils are quarantine pests.
(e) The study to determine the economic impact of mango tip borer should be repeated to
demonstrate the need (or otherwise) for specific insecticide treatments.
(f) The possible phytotoxic effect of mineral oil sprays and the impact of their use on
flowering and fruit set (as reported in the literature) needs investigation.
(Ill) FINANCIAL/COMMERCIAL BENEFITS
Not applicable.
6
TECHNICAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The mango industry ($60 m current value to north Queensland) has come into
prominence in the last decade. Expansion is continuing. Most of the crop is sold as
fresh fruit on the domestic market. Overseas markets are becoming very important to
the overall economy of the mango industry as supply exceeds domestic demand.
Access to some important markets has been denied to Australian mangoes because of
mango seed weevil, Sternochaetus mangiferae.
The pest status of the mango seed weevil results from quarantine limitations rather
than commodity damage. Fruit quality is unaffected by oviposition, larval feeding,
and development. Only seed germination is adversely effected.
The life history of S. mangiferae has been reported by Balcock and Kozuma (1964)
Schoeman (1977), De Villiers (1984) and Cunningham (1989). In north Queensland,
egg laying commences when the fruit has reached 30 mm in September/October and
continues until one month before fruit maturity in November, (Cunningham, 1989).
One or more eggs are laid on a fruit. Development from egg to adult occurs in 5-6
weeks. Adult weevils emerge from fallen fruit in January-February and move to
sheltered sites, usually tree crotches on the parent tree. They remain inactive until
swelling of the flower bud occurs. Movement from resting sites to the outer canopy is
by flight. Adult longevity of 21 months has been recorded by Balcock and Kozuma
(1964).
Jarvis (1946) considered damage to be of more concern to nurserymen than fresh fruit
producers and stated control was impractical in Queensland. A change from low to
high pest status occurred in the 1970's in response to quarantine limitations on some
foreign markets.
7
Brooks and Snyman (1986) and De Villiers (1987) in South Africa developed mango
seed weevil management strategies based on fruit hygiene, removal of fallen fruit and
fenvalerate, parathion or prothiofos sprays.
Two species of Diaspidid scales; Phenacaspis dilatata (Green) and Aulacaspis
tubercularis Newstead, are important economic pests of mangoes in Queensland.
Scales infest the twigs, leaves and fruit.
In the nursery a severe infestation of mango scale will retard growth. Young trees in
the field are particularly vulnerable to excessive leaf loss and death of twigs due to
scale infestation. The stress is exacerbated during hot dry weather.
Infested areas on leaves turn pale green or yellow and ultimately become necrotic.
Scale infestations on the fruit cause a conspicuous pick blemish. Both the blemish
and presence of scale downgrade quality and scale infested fruit is unacceptable for
export markets.
The biology of A. tubercularis has been discussed by De Villiers (1984) Vilujoen and
De Villiers (1987) and Cunningham (1989). Continuous breeding occurs throughout
the year in north Queensland. The rate of increase is highest in spring and summer.
In South Africa, De Villiers (1984) developed mango scale management strategies
based on prothiophos and parathion sprays but both insecticides are disruptive to
beneficial insects.
The work reported here had the following aims: (1) to determine the incidence of
S. mangiferae in the study area and to establish whether area freedom could allow the
issue of phytosanitary certificates, (2) to elucidate the efficacy of cultural control and
combinations of cultural practices and insecticide sprays in suppressing S. mangiferae
populations, (3) to develop a pest management strategy for mango scale, and (4)
determine the economic importance of mango tip borer.
8
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Mango seed weevil (MSW)
2.1.1 Incidence of MSW in the far north Queensland study area.
The study area was a roughly triangular area between Cairns, Mossman and Dimbulah
between latitudes 1706'S and 1630'S in north Queensland.
Preliminary sampling had shown that mango trees fell into three broad categories.
These were:
(1) shade trees in urban areas and adjoining dwellings on farms,
(2) orchard trees, usually > 10 years old, growing within long established farming
areas, and
(3) recently developed orchards isolated from trees in categories 1 and 2 and usually
< 10 years old.
Mangoes, within two weeks of maturity, were harvested at random and cut longitudinally into
halves. Cotyledons were examined for the presence of larvae, pupae and adult MSW. Fruit
was scored for the presence or absence of MSW. Fruit were destructively sampled at five
sites in each of the tree location categories. Sample size was 200 fruit. Due to irregular
bearing of mangoes the same trees in each category were not always sampled.
2.1.2 Evaluation of orchard freedom from MSW
A sampling procedure based on destructively sampling 1:400 randomly selected fruit within
one month of harvest was employed.
9
2.1.3 Management of MSW
(a) Experiment 1
An experimental area of 100 trees, in an orchard known to be infested with S. mangiferae,
was divided in half (5 rows x 10 trees). From one half, fallen fruit more than 20 mm long
was removed twice weekly until harvest. Fallen fruit were not removed from the other half.
In the succeeding year 200 fruit per block were sampled in the manner previously described,
from the three central rows, two weeks before harvest and the number of infested fruit
recorded.
(b) Experiment 2.
A 5 x 4 randomised block of 25 trees per plot was established in an orchard of 700 trees
infested with S. mangiferae. Datum area within plots was 9 trees in the centre of the plot.
Treatments were:
(1) nil treatment,
(2) trunk and scaffold branch spray with fenvalerate 0.05% a.i. in April,
(3) trunk and branch spray with fenvalerate 0.05% a.i. in April plus canopy sprays with
fenvalerate 0.025% a.i. before (July) and after flowering (October) and
(4) remove debris from base of trunk to the drip line and spray and cleared area, trunk and
scaffold branches in April with fenvalerate 0.05% a.i. plus the canopy before and after
flowering with fenvalerate 0.025% a.i.
Sprays were applied between 5 and 7 am with a misting machine. Four hundred random fruit
per treatment were destructively sampled two weeks prior to harvest and the number of
mango seed weevil recorded.
10
2.2 Mango scale
The efficacy of several insecticides against mango scales were tested in a 6 x 3 randomised
block experiment. Treatments were:
(1) prothiophos 0.05% a.i.,
(2) methidathion 0.05% a.i.,
(3) low viscosity oil 1.0% a.i.,
(4) buprofezin 0.05% a.i.,
(5) chlorpyrifos 0.1% a.i.
(6) nil treatment.
Treatments were applied on February 24, March 21 and October 22.
Four leaves were sampled from the canopy of the single tree plots in April, May, July,
September, October and December. Numbers of live female scales and beneficial insects
were recorded.
11
3. RESULTS
3.1 Mango seed weevil
3.1.1 Incidence of MSW in the far north Queensland study area
Results are presented in Table 1.
Infestation levels were higher in urban shade trees (category 1) than in trees under orchard
management (categories 2 and 3). Infestation levels in orchard trees in older established
farming areas (category 2) declined during the study period. Mango orchards (category 3)
established some distance from infested trees category (1 and 2) remained free from
infestation during the period of the study.
TABLE 1. Percentage of mango fruit infested with S. mangiferae
Year Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
(shade trees in (orchard trees in (orchard trees in
urban area) established farming newly cultivated
areas) areas)
1982 80 30 nil
1983 89 35 nil
1984 76 20 nil
1985 77 16 nil
1986 70 9 nil
1987 79 3 nil
12
No fruit set occurred at one site (category 1) Dimbulah in 1985 due to frost during flowering.
Infestation levels in 1986 were similar to 1984 levels despite the absence of fruit for 18
months.
3.1.2 Management of MSW
(a) Experiment 1. Infestation values for the hygiene and untreated blocks are 64 and 52
percent respectively. Field hygiene during one season did not influence the
percentage infestation level in the subsequent season. The experiment was
discontinued due to the high labour requirement.
(b) Experiment 2. The mean number of mango seed weevil per treatment are presented
in Table 2.
TABLE 2. The efficacy of several fenvalerate treatments against mango seed weevil
Treatment No. of infested fruit
(sample size 400 fruit)
Back transformed mean
(%)
1. nil treatment 16 3.3a
2. trunk and branch spray
with fenvalerate 0.05% a.i.
in April
4 0.8b
3. As 2 above plus canopy
sprays of fenvalerate
0.025% a.i. before and
after flowering
4 0.8b
(con. Over)
13
Treatment No. of infested fruit
(sample size 400 fruit)
Back transformed mean
(%)
4. Two canopy sprays of
fanvalerate 0.025% a.i.
before and after flowering
3 0.6b
5. Debris removed from
under tree spray drip area
plus spray treated area, as
in 2 and 3 above
5 1.0b
Means not followed by a letter in common differ significantly (P<0.05)
As data were not normally distributed, they were analysed using a generalised linear model
with a logit link and binomial error.
All fenvalerate treatments resulted in significantly fewer infested fruit than control (Table 2).
Treatments 2 (trunk and scaffold branch spray with fenvalerate 0.05% a.i. in April) and 4 (2
canopy sprays of fenvalerate 0.025% a.i. before and after flowering) were less labour
intensive and involved fewer sprays than treatments 3 and 5).
Presumably fenvalerate (treatment 2 is killing the adult beetles sheltering on the tree trunk
and scaffold branches. Cunningham (unpublished data) and Schoeman (1977) have been
unable to establish a correlation between the numbers of S. mangiferae adults found on the
trunk and scaffold branches during the non-fruiting period and subsequent level of
oviposition in fruit. Circumstantial evidence suggests some off season resting sites are
beyond the tree drip line. These sites would not have been treated in this experiment.
Treatment 4 (2 canopy sprays of fenvalerate 0.025% a.i. before and after flowering) is the
cheapest and easiest treatment to apply.
14
3.2 Mango scale
Results of chemical control trial are presented in Tables 3.
All insecticides tested were efficacious against mango scales, Aulacaspis tubercularis and
Phenacaspis dilatata.
The data presented in Table 4 shows numbers of beneficial insects collected from mango
scales from scale infested leaves collected from sprayed or unsprayed trees. Sample size was
72 leaves collected on six occasions between April and December. Two thousand one
hundred and fifty live female scales were examined.
Predators were: Coccinellidae {Rhyzobius sp. and Chilocorus(J)baileyi Blackburn);
Neuroptera (Chrysopidae) (Chrysopa otalatis Banks and Oligochrya lutea Walker);
Thysanoptera (Phaeothripidae) (Aleurodothrips faciapennis (Franklin)) and Lepidoptera
(Noctuidae) (Catoblemma dubia (Butler). Only one parasite, Hymenoptera (Aphelinidae),
Aphytits sp. was recorded. While predation levels could not be quantified, parasitism was
only 1.7 percent.
15
TABLE 3. Number of live female scales on old leaves and old stems after treatments in
Treatment
April May July September
Treatment Old
Leaves
Old
Stems
Old
Leaves
Old
Stems
Old
Leaves
Old
Stems
Old
Leaves
Old
Stem
Prothiophos
Buprophezin
Mineral oil
Methidathion
Chlorpyrifos
Control
12.0
4.3
5.0
1.7
2.3
94.0
1.0
0.3
2.3
0.7
0.3
6.7
31.3
10.7
16.0
9.3
7.0
111.7
2.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
0.3
8.0
33.0
18.3
49.7
12.3
3.0
63.3
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
10.3
100.0
7.7
31\0
23.3
22.3
112.3
3.7
2.7
2.0
3.0
3.3
17.3
LSD 5%
LSD 1%
22.3
31.8
NS
NS
64.2
91.3
2.6
3.6
33.2
47.3
5.3
7.5
60.4
85.9
9.3
13.2
LSD = Least Significant Difference at 5 and 1% level of probability.
16
TABLE 4. Number of beneficial insects recorded from scale infested mango leaves following tr
March & October
SAMPLE DATE APRIL MAY JULY SEPTEMBER OC
Beneficials C N H T. L C N H T L C N H T L C N H T L C N
Treatment
C N H T L C N H T L C N H T L C N
Prothiophos 1 - 3 1 - 1 . . . . 3 -
Buprophezin 1 _ _ . - - Buprophezin
Mineral Oil 1 1 - 3 - - - - - - 1 . . . . 3 -
Methidathion . . 1 . - - - 2 - - - - -
Chlorpyrifos 1 _ 2 - Chlorpyrifos 2 -
Control 1 - 4 3 - - - 3 7 3 3 - 1 10 - 4 - - 12 - 5 -
TOTAL 3 2 7 8 - - - 3 7 3 4 - 3 10 - 6 - - 12 - 13 -
C = Coccinellidae H = Hymenoptera L = Lepidoptera N = Neuropte
17
4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Insect cycles and phenological development in mangoes in north Queensland
Following harvest in December-January trees are pruned in January-February. New growth
flushes occur in late February and late March. These flushes are attacked by the
lepidopterous tip borers, Chlumetia euthysticha (Turner) and Penicillaria jocosatrix Guenee
and mango scales.
Two insecticide sprays are recommended in February and March to protect the new growth
from damage. Following flowering in July-August, mango fruit develop on the tree. By
October these fruit are 30mm diameter. At this stage oviposition by mango seed weevil
commences and continues until one month before fruit maturity. Mango scale and mango
plant hopper Colgaroides acuminata (Walker) cause fruit blemish during October-December.
Mango seed weevil hatch from fallen fruit in January-February.
Mango Seed Weevil management
High levels of mango seed weevil (MS W) in urban trees is most probably due to the absence
of insecticide sprays and also because a high percentage of the fruit is left unharvested. Our
results indicated that collection and destruction of fallen fruit does not control MSW. Also
populations of MSW are not reduced by the removal of infested fruit during harvest.
Urban trees are a focus for spreading MSW. Circumstantial evidence suggests infestations
spread passively by movement of infested fruit for propagation and consumption rather than
by flight of adult weevils.
Eradication of urban trees is not an option because of the costs and objections of landholders.
Similarly pest management with insecticides is impractical. An education program to
increase awareness of the dangers of spreading MSW through movement of fruit is
warranted. This is particularly valid where several growers may use a shared packing facility.
Circumstantial evidence suggests that population decline after 1983 (Table 1) in infested
orchards is due to methidathion and chlorpyrifos sprays applied in the pre and post flowering
period for mango scale control.
18
A two fold approach to managing MSW has been adopted. The program involves
identification of orchards free of the pest and suppression of populations in infested orchards.
The sampling procedure based on destructively sampling 1:400 fruit (approximately one fruit
from each alternate tree) has been a valuable guide to presence or absence of MSW. The
sample size is a compromise between accuracy and the cost to the grower of fruit loss due to
sampling.
Phytosanitary certificates issued following sampling have been a valuable guide to exporters,
of orchards which are free of MSW. Exporters have been requesting phytosanitary
certificates from growers. A long term approach to developing export markets is necessary.
In years of low domestic production and high domestic prices, growers are less enthusiastic
of destructive sampling to demonstrate low levels of MSW. Continuity of sampling to
maintain a history of freedom from infestation is important irrespective of short term market
trends.
Acceptance by the Japanese and Middle East countries of the orchard freedom concept has
opened markets to Australian mangoes.
The technique developed in this study for assessing farm freedom was used successfully in
Thailand to survey the incidence of a related MSW, Sternochaetus oliveri.
There are no known alternative host plants for MSW. At one location sampled, frost killed
the flowers and no fruit developed. Although the population of MSW was denied the
opportunity to reproduce for 18 months.the adults survived during this extended non fruiting
period. Longevity of adults (over several seasons if required) is an important survival
mechanism in mangoes which are erratic bearers. Consequently removal of fallen fruit,
stressed by De Villiers (1984) and Schoeman (1987) as a cultural control technique, is
unlikely to give significant population suppression in the short term. The cost of removing
fruit twice weekly over several months and at least two seasons would be high. A mechanical
method of fallen fruit collection would be an advantage.
19
Suppression of MSW to < 1 percent fruit infestation was achieved in one season using
fenvalerate sprays (0.025 % a. i.) applied in July and October. Fenvalerate treatment repeated
over several seasons will most likely reduce mango seed weevil to very low levels which
would not be detected by sampling. Fenvalerate sprays will most likely be necessary on a
continuing basis to prevent resurgence of MSW. Fenvalerate sprays can be used as a
mechanism for reducing field populations and limiting the spread of MSW to non-infested
orchards but cannot be used as a tool for MSW eradication.
Natural enemies are also extremely sensitive to fenvalerate sprays. Mango scale populations
increased in fenvalerate treated plots. Because the pest status of MSW results from export
quarantine limitations rather than commodity damage and fenvalerate sprays are disruptive of
biological control of mango scale, fenvalerate should not be sprayed in orchards producing
mangoes for the domestic market.
Mango scale management
Since the successful biological control of pink wax scale, Ceroplastes rubens Maskell by the
introduced parasite Anicetes beneficus Ishii & Yasumatsu, mango scale control is the biggest
single factor influencing the frequency of insecticide sprays on mangoes.
Beneficial insects presently in Queensland are ineffective as biocontrol agents in preventing
economic losses from mango scales. However they do collectively suppress mango scale
populations. Use of a broad spectrum insecticide such as fenvalerate will kill beneficials and
induce a rapid increase in mango scale populations.
During this study a literature review of beneficial insects on mango scales in overseas
localities was conducted with a view to finding candidate species for introduction. De
Villiers (1987) lists four natural control agents of mango scales in South Africa. These are
Aspidiotiphagus citrinus Craw (Aphelinidae) Rhizobius lophanthae (Blaisdell) and
Chilocorus nigritus (F) (Coccinelidae) and an unidentified Cecidimyiidae. Schoeman (1987)
recorded parasitism levels of 17.7% for A. citrinus and considered the insect to have
biocontrol potential. Samways (1984) has successfully employed C. nigritus against
Diaspidid scales on citrus. The taxonomic status of Aspidiotiphagus is being revised. Until
the revision is published, Aspidiotiphagus cannot be a candidate for introduction.
20
An application to the Department of Primary Industries and Energy to introduce Chilocorus
nigritus (F.) from South Africa for host specificity testing was refused. The recent fortuitous
arrival of Chilocorcus circumdatus, which is proving to be a useful predator against
Diaspidid scales in citrus, may be advantageous to biological control of mango scales. The
interaction between C. Circumdatus and mango scales is being studied.
Augmentation of the biological arsenal against mango scales is desirable. Selection of
beneficial-friendly insecticides for mango scale control will enhance control and prevent
rapid resurgence of mango scales which can follow the use of broad spectrum insecticides.
Two insecticides tested in the mango scale insecticide screening trial are selective on a
limited range of insects, mainly scale insects. These insecticides are low viscosity oil and
buprofezin. The latter is an insect growth regulator. Buprofezin causes the death of scales at
moulting and suppresses oviposition. Both low viscosity oil and buprofezin were efficacious
against mango scales in the insecticide screening trial conducted during this study (Table 3).
Low viscosity oil is the preferred insecticide for mango scale control.
Buprofezin has not been registered for control of mango scale because product development
was not pursued by the manufacturer. The organophosphorous (OP) insecticides chlorpyrifos
and methidathion are also efficacious against mango scales and tip borers, C. Euthysticha and
P. Jososatrix, which damage new growth in February-April. Efficacy data presented here
(Table 3) was used to support registration of chlorpyrifos for mango scale control.
To achieve integrated pest management in mangoes, augmentation of parasitoids by
introduction of beneficials and the use of beneficial-friendly scale pesticides is desirable.
Elucidation of economic injury levels and seasonal population cycles would assist in the
formulation of an effective integrated pest management program for mangoes.
21
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cunningham, I.C. (1989). Management of Mango Insect Pests - A Review. Proceedings of
the 3rd International Mango Symposium, Darwin.
Cunningham, I.C. (1989). Mango seed weevil in Queensland. Proceedings of the 3rd
International Mango Symposium, Darwin.
Cunningham, I.C. (1989). Common mango scales in Queensland. Proceedings of the 3rd
International Mango Symposium, Darwin.
De Villiers, E.A. (1987). Beheer van die mangodophuis met mineral olie. South African
Mango Growers Association Yearbook Vol. 7.
Samways, M.J. (1984). Biology and economic value of the scale predator, Chilocorus
nigritus (F) (Coccinellidae). Biocontrol News and Information 5(2)91-105.
Schoeman (1987). First record of a parasitoid of the mango scale, Aulacaspis tubercularis
Newstead. J.ent.Socof Southern Africa, 50: 1,259.
Viljoen, Helena M.-and De Villiers, E.A. (1987). Doeltreff end heid van fenvaleraat en
monokratafos teen die mangodopluis, Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead. Subtropica
8: 1:19-23.