Acceso abierto

Responses of Anastrepha suspensa, Diachasmimorpha longicaudata, and Sensitivity of Guava Production to Heterorhabditis bacteriophora in Fruit Fly Integrated Pest Management

William K. Heve

William K. Heve

Citrus Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of FloridaFlorida, 33850, United States
Buscar este autor en
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Heve, William K.
, 
Fahiem E. El-Borai

Fahiem E. El-Borai

Citrus Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of FloridaFlorida, 33850, United States
Buscar este autor en
Sciendo|Google Scholar
El-Borai, Fahiem E.
, 
Evan G. Johnson

Evan G. Johnson

Citrus Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of FloridaFlorida, 33850, United States
Buscar este autor en
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Johnson, Evan G.
, 
Daniel Carrillo

Daniel Carrillo

Tropical Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of FloridaFlorida, 33850, United States
Buscar este autor en
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Carrillo, Daniel
, 
William T. Crow

William T. Crow

Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of FloridaFlorida, 33850, United States
Buscar este autor en
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Crow, William T.
 y 
Larry W. Duncan

Larry W. Duncan

Citrus Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of FloridaFlorida, 33850, United States
Buscar este autor en
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Duncan, Larry W.
  
17 oct 2018
Responses of Anastrepha suspensa, Diachasmimorpha longicaudata, and Sensitivity of Guava Production to Heterorhabditis bacteriophora in Fruit Fly Integrated Pest Management's Cover Image
Acerca de este artículo
Artículo anterior
Artículo siguiente
Cite
Descargar portada
Publicado en línea: 17 oct 2018
Páginas: 261 - 272
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2018-039
Palabras clave
© 2018 William K. et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

The patterns of numbers of emerging (A) adult Caribfly and (B) parasitoid wasps (Diachasmimorpha longicaudata) observed in EPN treatments, with increasing IJ rate of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora applied over two Caribfly-infested guavas in the field. Tukey’s HSD tests at P ⩽ 0.05: same letter on top of bars (± standard errors) denotes no significant differences, even though numerical margins were observed, in accumulated densities of emerging adult Caribfly or the parasitoid wasps between application rates of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora.
The patterns of numbers of emerging (A) adult Caribfly and (B) parasitoid wasps (Diachasmimorpha longicaudata) observed in EPN treatments, with increasing IJ rate of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora applied over two Caribfly-infested guavas in the field. Tukey’s HSD tests at P ⩽ 0.05: same letter on top of bars (± standard errors) denotes no significant differences, even though numerical margins were observed, in accumulated densities of emerging adult Caribfly or the parasitoid wasps between application rates of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora.

Figure 2.

Relationship between relative survival of Caribfly and increasing IJ rate of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora used to treat two infested guavas plot−1 in field trials from June to August 2017. The coefficient of determination and the probability statistic for significance level are R 2 and P, respectively.
Relationship between relative survival of Caribfly and increasing IJ rate of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora used to treat two infested guavas plot−1 in field trials from June to August 2017. The coefficient of determination and the probability statistic for significance level are R 2 and P, respectively.

Figure 3.

Linear relationship between cumulative densities of emerging adult Caribfly and those of the surviving parasitoid wasps, Diachasmimorpha longicaudata. The coefficient of determination is R 2 whereas P is the probability statistic for significance level.
Linear relationship between cumulative densities of emerging adult Caribfly and those of the surviving parasitoid wasps, Diachasmimorpha longicaudata. The coefficient of determination is R 2 whereas P is the probability statistic for significance level.

Figure 4.

Relationship between probability of observing large numbers of the parasitoid Diachasmimorpha longicaudata and the increasing IJ rate from 0 to 100 IJs cm−2, following EPN-augmentation of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora over two guavas in field trials from June to August 2017. The coefficient of determination is R 2, whereas the probability statistic for significance level is P.
Relationship between probability of observing large numbers of the parasitoid Diachasmimorpha longicaudata and the increasing IJ rate from 0 to 100 IJs cm−2, following EPN-augmentation of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora over two guavas in field trials from June to August 2017. The coefficient of determination is R 2, whereas the probability statistic for significance level is P.

Cost estimates for the possible EPN-augmentation approaches in guava orchards to achieve maximum suppression of Caribfly at the best IJ ratea_

Strategic EPN-augmentation option In series, number of fruit tree−1 on the ground Total number of fruit on the ground in 1 hectareb Required IJs ha−1 of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora Estimated cost of total number of IJs (US$ ha−1)
Hectare-wide EPN-augmentation or broadcasting at ‘(50 IJs cm−2 spread over a fruit in 350 cm2)’ seems to be less cost-effective na na 5 × 109 970c
Applying Heterorhabditis bacteriophora IJs over each infested fruit on soil surface at 17,500 IJs fruit−1 seems to be more economical ⩽1 ⩽500 8,750,000 1.70
2 1,000 17,500,000 3.40
3 1,500 26,250,000 5.10
4 2,000 35,000,000 6.79
5e 2,500 43,750,000 8.49
6 3,000 52,500,000 10.19
7 3,500 61,250,000 11.88
8 4,000 70,000,000 13.58
9 4,500 78,750,000 15.28
10 5,000 87,500,000 16.98
The average costs of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora IJs ha−1 in each month 9.34d

Cost-benefit analysis showing changing annual base net income level in response to varying total costs following inclusion of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora in Caribfly IPM plans to suppress Caribfly (Anastrepha suspensa) better in south Florida guava orchards_

Methods to include Heterorhabditis bacteriophora in Caribfly IPM
Before inclusion of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora in IPM Spot treatment technique Hectare-wide broadcasting
Details US$ ha−1 US$ ha−1 US$ ha−1
1. Production costsa
Irrigation 494 494 494
Fertilizers 1,359 1,359 1,359
Insecticides 1,112 1,112 1,112
Herbicides 1,112 1,112 1,112
Fungicides 988 988 988
Heterorhabditis bacteriophora (in Table 1) 0 267 4,850
Labor (pruning; supervision; others) 1,606 1,606 1,606
Interest on capital (5%) 334 347 576
2. Fixed costs
Cash overhead:
Insurance 247 247 247
Taxes 247 247 247
Non-cash overhead:
Land rent 1,236 1,236 1,236
Other overhead 1,483 1,483 1,483
3. Harvesting and marketing costs
Picking and sales cost 6,919 6,919 6,919
4. Total costs 17,137 17,417 22,229
5. Returns on ‘wholesale base yield’
Annual wholesale base revenueb, c 39,537 39,537 39,537
Annual base net incomed 22,400 22,120 17,308
Idioma:
Inglés
Calendario de la edición:
1 veces al año
Temas de la revista:
Ciencias de la vida, Ciencias de la vida, otros
RSS Feed de revista