Nonpesticide alternatives can suppress crop pests

作者: Kent M. Daane , Nicholas J. Mills

DOI:

关键词:

摘要: complete their development); pathogens (bacteria, fungi and viruses); parasites (soil-inhabiting entomopathogenic nematodes); antagonists (less damaging competitors). Three broad categories describe how natural enemies are used in biological control: classical control, augmentation conservation. In host-specific imported from the exotic pest’s region of origin. On average, a new invasive pest has arrived California every 2 months during past decade (Dowell 2002) and, with increasing global trade travel, this rate seems likely to continue or even increase. best-case scenario, enemy will establish provide long-term suppression at low densities. A historic stellar example is 1889 importation vedalia beetle Australia control cottony cushion scale, which was devastating citrus industry. second approach, when either indigenous pests unable persist year-round build populations quickly enough suppress damage, numbers can be augmented through periodic release commercially produced enemies. The inoculation small improve colonization critical periods for season-long suppression. Likewise, inundation large immediate suppression, but often without longer-lasting impact. third approach involves conservation both habitat manipulation alteration crop production practices. Natural limited by availability essential resources such as nectar overwintering sites, landscape within surrounding have major impact on effectiveness among sites regions. addition, lower tolerance many pesticides. As such, tactics include Biological cultural controls...

参考文章(14)
M. S. Hoddle, R. V. Dowell, Exotic invaders and biological control in California. California Conference on Biological Control III, University of California at Davis, USA, 15-16 August, 2002. pp. 47- 50 ,(2002)
Kent Daane, Glenn Yokota, Yvonne Rasmussen, Yuwei Zheng, Kenneth S. Hagen, Effectiveness of leafhopper control varies with lacewing release methods California Agriculture. ,vol. 47, pp. 19- 23 ,(1993) , 10.3733/CA.V047N06P19
Jay Rosenheim, Lawrence R. Wilhoit, Why lacewings may fail to suppress aphids … Predators that eat other predators disrupt cotton aphid control California Agriculture. ,vol. 47, pp. 7- 9 ,(1993) , 10.3733/CA.V047N05P7
John J. Obrycki, Les C. Lewis, David B. Orr, Augmentative Releases of Entomophagous Species in Annual Cropping Systems Biological Control. ,vol. 10, pp. 30- 36 ,(1997) , 10.1006/BCON.1997.0546
John T. Trumble, Benito Alvarado-Rodriguez, Development and economic evaluation of an IPM program for fresh market tomato production in Mexico Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. ,vol. 43, pp. 267- 284 ,(1993) , 10.1016/0167-8809(93)90091-3
Timothy Collier, Robert Van Steenwyk, A critical evaluation of augmentative biological control Biological Control. ,vol. 31, pp. 245- 256 ,(2004) , 10.1016/J.BIOCONTROL.2004.05.001
Rachid Hanna, Frank G. Zalom, Lloyd T. Wilson, George M. Leavitt, Sulfur can suppress mite predators in vineyards California Agriculture. ,vol. 51, pp. 19- 21 ,(1997) , 10.3733/CA.V051N01P19
Kent M. Daane, Larry E. Williams, Glenn Y. Yokota, Shawn A. Steffan, Leafhopper prefers vines with greater amounts of irrigation California Agriculture. ,vol. 49, pp. 28- 32 ,(1995) , 10.3733/CA.V049N03P28
Charles G. Summers, Integrated pest management in forage alfalfa Integrated Pest Management Reviews. ,vol. 3, pp. 127- 154 ,(1998) , 10.1023/A:1009654901994