Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:14:23.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of biological control measures in the intensive management of insect pests in New Jersey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

James H. Lashomb ,
William Metterhouse  and
Robert Chianese
James H. Lashomb
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Entomology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903.
William Metterhouse
Affiliation:
Director of Plant Industry, New Jersey Department of Agriculture, Trenton, NJ 08625.
Robert Chianese
Affiliation:
Chief of Biological Control, New Jersey Department of Agriculture, Trenton, NJ 08625.
Get access

Abstract

The U.S. public is expressing strong preference for the use of biological control methods in the management of U.S. agricultural, forest, and rangeland insect pests. This follows from a widespread understanding among citizens that synthetic insecticides have potentially harmful side effects on humans and that they are spreading increasingly as pollutants in the environment. Major recent increases in the number of pesticide-resistant insect species also put pressure on the agricultural community toward adoption of alternative non-agchemical plant and animal protection strategies. Movement in the direction of such alternatives has been facilitated by the fact that in the last two decades much progress has been made in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) through an improved understanding of the interactions of pests with their hosts. In that time period, many advances have been made in describing and predicting insect movement, seasonal cycles, and the effects of secondary plant compounds on insect reproduction. Simultaneously, much has been learned about the behavior, physiology, and population dynamics of insect parasitoids, i.e. parasites on insect pests. In the 1990's and subsequently, Biological Control Intensive Pest Management (BCIPM) will require continuing research to attain needed advancement in knowledge of growth and development of host plants, population dynamics of pests and parasitoids, and ecology of secondary pests that may interfere with implementation of BCIPM programs. Extension and research personnel will then be increasingly able to devise useful control methods for pests within selected cropping systems. We describe here examples to illustrate present and potential future use of BCIPM in different practical plant systems in New Jersey.

Keywords

integrated pest managementinsect movementseasonal cyclesinsect reproductionparasitoidsforestsornamentalsfruit treesforage and field cropsvegetablessod
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 3 , Issue 2-3 , Spring-Summer 1988 , pp. 77 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Anon. 1988. New York Times Editorial. 11 11, 1988.Google Scholar
2.Cotty, S., and Lashomb, J. H.. 1981. Vegetative growth and yield response of eggplant to varying first generation Colorado potato beetle densities. Journ. N. Y. Entomol. Soc. pp. 220–228.Google Scholar
3.Forgash, A. 1981. Insecticide resistance of the Colorado potato beetle Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say. In Lashomb, J. and Casagrande, R. (eds.). Advances in Potato Pest Management, Ross Publishing Co., Stroundsburg, Pennsylvania, pp. 34–46.Google Scholar
4.Hall, R. W., and Ehler, L. E.. 1979. Rate of establishment of natural enemies in classical biological control. Bull. Entomol. of Amer. pp. 280–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Harcourt, D. G. 1971. Population dynamics of Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) in Eastern Ontario. III: Major population processes. Canad. Entomol. pp. 1049–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Hoy, M., and Herzog, D. C.. 1985. Biological Control in Agricultural IPM Systems. Academic Press. 589 pp.Google Scholar
7.Hull, L., and Beers, E. H.. 1985. Ecological selectivity: modifying chemical control practices to preserve natural enemies. In Hoy, M. and Herzog, D. C. (eds.). Biological Control in Agricultural IPM Systems. Academic Press, New York, New York. pp. 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Jannson, R. K., Lashomb, J., Groden, E., and Bullock, R.. 1987. Parasitism of Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) by Edovum puttleri (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) in different cultivars of eggplant. Entomophaga. pp. 503–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Lashomb, J., and Ng, Y. S.. 1984. Colonization by Colorado potato beetles, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), in rotated and nonrotated fields. Environ. Entomol. pp. 1352–1356.Google Scholar
10.Lashomb, J., Ng, Y. S., Jannson, R., and Bullock, R.. 1987a. Edovum puttleri (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), an egg parasitoid of Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) development and parasitism in eggplant. Environ. Entomol. pp. 65–68.Google Scholar
11.Lashomb, J., Krainacker, D., Jannson, R., Ng, Y. S., and Chianese, R.. 1987b. Parasitism of Leptinotarsa decemlineata eggs by Edovum puttien (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae): effects of host age, parasitoid age and temperature. Canad. Entomol. pp. 75–82.Google Scholar
12.Puttler, B., and Long, S. H.. 1983. Host specificity tests of an egg parasite Edovum puttleri (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) of the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Cet leoptera: Chrysomelidae). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. pp. 384–387.Google Scholar
13.Southwood, T. R. E. 1977. Habitat, the template for ecological strategies? Journ. Anim. Ecol. 46:337–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Stevens, L., Steinhauer, A. L., and Coulson, J.. 1975. Suppression of Mexican bean beetle on soybeans with annual inoculative released on Pediobius foveolatus. Environ. Entomol. pp. 947–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Waage, J., and Greathead, D.. 1986. Insect Parasitoids. Academic Press. 389 pp.Google Scholar