Biological and cultural controls … Nonpesticide alternatives can suppress crop pests

Mills, N; Daane, K

Biological and cultural controls … Nonpesticide alternatives can suppress crop pests

Authors

Nicholas J Mills
Kent M Daane

Authors Affiliations

N.J. Mills is Professor, and K.M. Daane is Associate Specialist, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, UC Berkeley. They are Co-Directors, Center for Biological Control, College of Natural Resources, UC Berkeley.

Publication Information

Hilgardia 59(1):23-28. DOI:10.3733/ca.v059n01p23. January 2005.

PDF of full article, Cite this article

Abstract

Biological controls (the use of natural enemies) and cultural controls (the modification of cropping practices) provide valuable alternatives to organophosphate insecticides (OPs) for the suppression of major arthropod crop pests in California. We discuss the successes and limitations of these two approaches with regard to tree fruits and nuts, vines, and field and row crops. For example, a historic success story is that the cottony cushion scale remains innocuous in citrus production, more than 100 years after its successful suppression by the vedalia beetle. More recently, growers’ use of groundcovers and road maintenance helps keep dust down on orchard roads to limit the buildup of web-spinning mites, and good vineyard management is now synonymous with cultural controls for grape pests. Although such alternatives may not always be as effective and predictable as conventional insecticide programs, recognition that partial suppression can greatly reduce the need for OPs will lead to the more widespread adoption of alternatives.

References

Collier T, Van Steenwyk RA. A critical evaluation of augmentative biological control. Biol Control. 2004. 31:245-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2004.05.001

Costello MJ, Daane KM. Spider and leafhopper (Erythroneura spp.) response to vineyard ground cover. Environ Entomol. 2003. 32:1085-98.

Daane KM, Sime KR, Cooper ML, Battany MC. Ants in your vineyard?. UC Plant Prot Quart. 2003. 14(2):6-11.

Daane KM, Williams LE, Yokota GY, Steffan SA. Leafhoppers prefer vines with greater amounts of irrigation. Cal Ag. 1995. 49(3):28-32.

Daane KM, Yokota GY, Rasmussen YD, et al. Effectiveness of leafhopper control varies with lacewing release methods. Cal Ag. 1993. 47(6):19-23.

Dowell RV. Exotic invaders and biological control in California. Proc 3rd Cal Conf Biol Control. 2002. 47-50.

Flaherty DL, Wilson LT, Bellows TS, Fisher TW. Biological control of insects and mites on grapes. Handbook of Biological Control.. 1999. San Diego: Academic Pr. p. 353-69.

Grafton-Cardwell EE, Gu P. Conserving vedalia beetle, Rodolia cardinalis (Mulsant)(Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), in citrus: A continuing challenge as new insecticides gain registration. J Econ Entomol. 2003. 96:1388-98. PubMed PMID: 14650510

Hanna R, Zalom FG, Wilson LT, Leavitt GM. Sulfur can suppress mite predators in vineyards. Cal Ag. 1997. 51(1):19-21.

Hoddle M. Persea mite biology and control. AvoResearch (Dec). 2002. 4-

Millar JG, Daane KM, McElfresh JS, et al. Development and optimization of methods for using sex pheromone for monitoring the mealybug Planococcus ficus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) in California vineyards. J Econ Entomol. 2002. 95:706-14. PubMed PMID: 12216810

Mills N, Pickel C, Mansfield S, et al. Trichogramma inundation: Integrating parasitism into management of codling moth. Cal Ag. 2000. 54(6):22-5.

Obrycki JJ, Lewis LC, Orr DB. Augmentative releases of entomophagous species in annual cropping systems. Biol Control. 1997. 10:30-6. https://doi.org/10.1006/bcon.1997.0546

Rosenheim JA, Wilhoit LR. Predators that eat other predators disrupt cotton aphid control. Cal Ag. 1993. 47(5):7-9.

Summers CG. Integrated pest management in forage alfalfa. Integr Pest Manag Rev. 1998. 3:127-54. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009654901994

Triapitsyn SV. Anagrus (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) egg parasitoids of Erythroneura spp. and other leafhoppers (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) in North American vineyards and orchards: A taxonomic review. Trans Amer Entomol Soc. 1998. 124:77-112.

Trumble JT, Alvarado-Rodriguez B. Development and economic evaluation of an IPM program for fresh market tomato production in Mexico. Agric Ecosys Environ. 1993. 43:267-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(93)90091-3

[UC IPM] UC Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. Pest management guidelines for artichoke. 2003a. www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.artichoke.html

UC IPM. Pest management guidelines for cotton. 2003b. www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.cotton.html

Also in this issue:

Aphelopus albopictus Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Dryinidae): Abundance, Parasitism, and Distribution in Relation to Leafhopper Hosts in Grapes

Environmental laws elicit evolution in pest management

Letters: January-March 2005

Science briefs: January-March 2005

Food Quality Protection Act launches search for pest management alternatives

Managing resistance is critical to future use of pyrethroids and neonicotinoids

Pheromone mating disruption offers selective management options for key pests

Various novel insecticides are less toxic to humans, more specific to key pests

Microorganisms and their byproducts, nematodes, oils and particle films have important agricultural uses

Costs of 2001 methyl bromide rules estimated for California strawberry industry