Quality assessment of selected commercially available whitefly and aphid biological control agents in the United States

This study assessed the quality of three commercially available natural enemies used for pest management in greenhouses: the whitefly parasitoid Encarsia formosa Gahan (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), the aphid parasitoid Aphidius colemani Viereck (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), and the aphid predatory midge...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of economic entomology Vol. 97; no. 3; pp. 781 - 788
Main Authors Vasquez, G.M, Orr, D.B, Baker, J.R
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England 01.06.2004
Subjects
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:This study assessed the quality of three commercially available natural enemies used for pest management in greenhouses: the whitefly parasitoid Encarsia formosa Gahan (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), the aphid parasitoid Aphidius colemani Viereck (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), and the aphid predatory midge Aphidoletes aphidimyza (Rondani) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Shipment packaging was consistent for all natural enemies. However, there was high variability in delivery punctuality, product cost, and product information provided by each of the six selected companies. Product quantity, percentage of emergence upon arrival, percentage of total emergence, percentage of females, and percentage of flying insects were assessed using International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) recommended procedures. The parameters with greatest variability between companies were percentage of emergence upon arrival (0.9-10.5%) and percentage of flying insects (35.4-85.0%) for E. formosa; product quantity (623.3-833.8 aphid mummies), percentage of emergence upon arrival (6.1-41.2%) and percentage of females (51.1-54.8%) for A. colemani; and percentage of emergence upon arrival (0.0-7.7%) and percentage of females (54.6-76.2%) for A. aphidimyza. Results are discussed in terms of the value to consumers and compared with IOBC standards.
ISSN:0022-0493
1938-291X
DOI:10.1603/0022-0493%282004%29097%5B0781%3AQAOSCA%5D2.0.CO%3B2