Regulated Pests and their Origins

The historic Silk Road system of trade routes across Asia would have been the origin of much of the early human initiated dispersal of many, now cosmopolitan, oriental pest species to Europe and the converse, together with the dispersal of pests from and to places en route. The pests most amenable to this type of movement were those associated with durable commodities and staple diet consumables. However, a degree of susceptibility to dispersal is evident, with some grain and structural fabric pests proving highly mobile and now cosmopolitan while others are still relatively restricted to their original areas.
These latter, such as the very destructive dermestid khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium, and the bostrychid larger grain borer, Prostephanus truncatus, have achieved major status as quarantine pests in recent times because of their still limited distribution. Nevertheless most pests of durable commodities had achieved cosmopolitan status before the advent of modern phytosanitary practice and these pests have become even more widely dispersed through recent sea and air trade.

As trading ships became faster the type of host commodity transported became more diverse and with it the pests associated with more perishable commodities as these were included in trade or carried as sustenance of ships’ crews. Dispersal of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata, illustrates this well (Maddison and Bartlett, 1989). A major host is citrus and early voyagers learned the benefits of fresh citrus to prevent scurvy. Citrus was cultivated in the Asian subcontinent from earliest times (Willis, 1966) but with the advent of trade became widely cultivated in the Mediterranean region especially the Iberian and Italian peninsulas where Mediterranean fruit fly was probably endemic by then, despite its southern African region origins. With the development of sea trade, convenient ports were developed for watering, fuelling and replenishment of food including fresh fruit and vegetables. Today many of these can be identified as areas of establishment of Mediterranean fruit fly including the Canary Islands, St Helena, Cape Province South Africa, south-west Western Australia, Hawaii, Central America and landfalls in South America such as Rio de Janeiro. Undoubtedly there were other areas where the species failed to establish initially or failed to survive long term including eastern Australia and New Zealand.

A source of confirmation of pest dispersal in this way can often be found in the label data on specimens in entomological reference collections in the locations in question and elsewhere the species might have been of interest. Many are recorded in distribution data of taxonomic papers on the pest species. Care must be exercised to differentiate between specimens taken as interceptions at entry and those from established populations at the recorded location. However, even interception records are valuable in that they indicate the possibility of establishment on that or other occasions. The outcome of this historical process is that many pests will be found to have reached their limit of dispersal before phytosanitary quarantine became an established practice. In some places they will be recognizably endemic and consequently of no justifiable quarantine significance. In other places where establishment potential is marginal they may be present and persisting below the limit of ordinary detection. If this can be determined, there might be no justification for quarantine barriers to trade with respect to that pest. The reliability of pest incidence data is in direct relation to the search effort put into detection surveys.

References:

Maddison, P.A. and Bartlett, B.J. (1989) A contribution towards the zoogeography of the Tephritidae. In: Robinson, A.S. and Hooper, G. (eds) Fruit Flies, their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Vol. 3A. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 27–35.
Willis, J.C. (1966) A Dictionary of the Flowering Plants and Ferns.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Raising Silkworms & Harvesting Cocoons

Silkworms are really not worms at all. silk worms are the larvae of ‘Bombyx mori’ moths and silkworms are actually domesticated insects.

Native to china, the silkworm does not longer exist in the wild, after so many centuries of inbreeding the silkworm is incapable of flight, mates quickly after emerging from its crysalis, and dies a day or so after laying its eggs.

Design boom illustrates the several stages of sericulture, which begins with hatching silkworm eggs ...
An ounce of silkworm eggs yields about 35,000 worms, during gestation, which lasts approximately three weeks, the eggs must stay between 25 and 31 °C, in a tray with high humidity.

As they hatch, each of the tiny creatures must be carefully moved to a ‘petri dish’, a circular flat bamboo tray, to be fed with fresh mulberry leaves several times a day.

When the baby silkworms emerge from their eggs, they are really tiny, about the size of a lowercase ‘i’, and almost black. From the moment they emerge they start eating with an enthusiasm that never abates.

When design boom entered the farmer’s household we could hear them constantly chewing. The worms are protected from harmful flying insects by wrapping the trays in homespun cotton.
The newly born silkworm only eats mulberry leaves. a silk farmer must have a ready supply of mulberry leaves and fruits close at hand, even one missed feeding can kill the sericulture. there are times of the year when the mulberry leaves are not around... continued food shortages can decrease the quality of silk any survivors make.

If there are shortages anyway, lettuce makes a decent emergency dish, as long as it is well-washed (pesticides kill) and dried thoroughly.
Despite revolutionary changes in methods of manufacture, the ultimate basis of silk remains the tiny, inconspicuous-looking silkworm and the most critical period in silk production comes during the silkworm’s brief life span of around 20/24 days.

Nearly all silkworm-producing moths belong to the family ‘bombycidae’, of which one member, ‘bombyx mori’ is responsible for most of the world’s silk.
At the beginning every few days, the worms need to be moved to a clean tray with fresh food.

Members of the farmer’s household must spend a growing amount of time to their bamboo trays, also because silkworms produce quite a lot of excrement and cleaning the trays is not a job for the weak-stomached.

They continue feeding and moving the silkworms, dividing the colonies when the silkworms are too large or hungry for the numbers in that tray. by the fourth week, the largest of the silkworms will be more than 5 cm. long, fat, and hungry enough that they need to be fed every day.

An easy test confirms their readiness to cocooning. the farmer picks them up and looks between their rear pair of legs, from the underside. if there is a gray mass there, the caterpillar isn't quite ready, but if it's milky and translucent, the silkworm has pooped its last and is definitely ready.

The worms suddenly stop eating and raise their heads - another sign that they are ready for the all-important job of spinning cocoons.
At that stage they are removed from their feeding trays.
The ‘bombyx mori’ worms are now inserted in a specially woven circular bamboo scaffolding, which will make the cocoons more uniform in shape and easier to collect.
Again, worms are protected from harmful flying insects by wrapping the trays with fine nets. There seems to be always a few dead silkworms in each tray.

While a dramatic increase in the mortality rate is reason for concern, silkworms are insects, and farmers can expect that less than half of the silkworms will reach full maturity.
Each silkworm now doubles itself up on its back, and by contracting secretes, from an opening under its mouth, a steady stream of liquid silk, coated with sericin, which hardens on exposure to air.

They're starting to lay out the support strands for their cocoons, although they may not yet be serious about cocooning.
Some of the larger caterpillars are climbing the walls of the tray (they've done this before, to shed their skins, but this time their heads are pointing toward the lid) and the busy silkworms are guided by figure of eight movements of their heads, to dispose the liquid silk in layers, forming the cocoon.
After some 36 hours, the worms are sealed within a yellow cocoon, embarked on the process of metamorphosing into a moth.
The worms have spun thousands of gossamer little cocoons.
The satisfactory cocoons are now in a clean tray. see the lustrous, golden color. Care must be taken not to damage them when removing from the old trays.

The entire process, from silkworm egg to complete cocoon, takes about twenty-five days. Silk worms transform themselves, inside the cocoon, into a chrysalis and then into a butterfly...
Most of the cocoons are used for the next step in silk making but some of them leave the cocoon as a butterfly. it usually secretes a liquid onto the silk threads to dissolve them, so it can emerge.

The new moths must be moved to another tray so the mess they make while mating and laying eggs doesn't get all over the hard-earned silk cocoons. The males (small) will die once the deed is done, while the females will stick around to lay about 200 - 300 eggs each.

Courtesy: Design Boom

Aphids Biology and Control

Top 10 Insect Pests of Cotton in Pakistan

Insects represent a widely studied group of arthropods having diversity in their habitat and life forms. Adaptation of insects may be directly correlated with the successful evolution history. Scientists are working day and night to find the successful adaptation of insects to their environment. The plants on which insect feeds are called as host plants. Some insects are monophagous and feed on one plant species. Others are called as polyphagous and are having a diverse range of feeding and living. Although the pest management techniques are still proving to be reasonable to some extent but the insects are coming up with an ever increasing resistance mechanism that are supporting their life forms as well as strengthening their next generations.

Cotton serves as a perfect host for variety of insects. Cotton is widely grown in South Asia mainly due to the perfect atmospheric and topographic features. Insect pests of cotton in Pakistan represent the greatest diversity in the whole region. More than 1300 species of insects are found attacking on Cotton crop and more than 93 insects and mites are found damaging for the cotton crop in Pakistan.

10. Whitefly

Bemisia tabaci is said to be the most notorious pest of American cotton mainly due to its ability to transmit the CLCV also called as the Cotton Leaf Curl Virus. Mainly this insect pest damages the cotton crop in four ways. It sucks the cell sap and results in loss of vigor. It also injects the toxic saliva that results in a great damage to the cotton leaves. It sucks the cell sap and secretes the honey dew that invites the infestation of sooty mould. Sickly black appearance of the plant results in less absorption of sunlight and the photosynthesis process is adversely affected in one way or the other. Transmission of CLCV is one of the most important damage of cotton whitefly.

9. Jassid

Amrasca biguttula is one of the most damaging pests of cotton crop in Pakistan. Damage of Cotton Jassid is very different as compared to that of other insect pests of cotton. Cup formation of leaves is observed in the peak of its attack. It also secretes the toxic secretions that are passed along with the saliva and the plant metabolism gets a greater shock due to the very presence of this particular insect pest of cotton. It also disturbs the boll formation as the boll formation is reduced after the attack of Jassid. It also affects the ladyfinger crop and also causes a greater damage to the winter vegetables which serves as an alternate source of food when the cotton season is not in progress.

8. Thrips

Thrips tabaci is one of the most threatening pests of cotton, onion and garlic. The rasping sucking mouth parts of this insect damages the vegetative as well as the reproductive parts of many crops. In cotton the attack of thrips is greatly observed on the flowers and leaves where it congregates near the base of flowers or the leaves. Most of the farmers get the confusion in determining the attack of thrips. The mode of damage is different as compared to other insect pests of cotton. Crumpled and silvery appearance of leaves is the main sign of the thrips attack on American cotton. Insect Pest Management should be well directed in order to control the sucking as well as the chewing insect pests of cotton crop. In many countries like USA thrips is considered to be the vector of many viruses like the streak virus of peas and yellow spot of pineapple.

7. Mealy Bug

Phenococcus gossypiphilous was first reported in 2005 in Pakistan and in 2006-07 it affected the whole cotton belt of Pakistan. Life cycle of mealy bug is very rapid and it feeds on almost all kind of vegetables and flowers mainly due to the polyphagous habit. It damages the cotton crop by sucking the cell sap and decreasing the plant vigor. It also secretes some toxic saliva secretions that inhibit the growth and disturbs plant metabolism. Sometimes it can also secrete the cottony wax and when the attack exceeds the threshold level honey dew also increases in percentage and so is the sooty mold. Chemical control is not the only solution because the biological control of mealy bug served to control most of the pest population in the Cotton belts of Pakistan. IPM of any insect should focus on all the possible methods and techniques to ensure the discouragement of pest populations in a particular habitat or area.

6. Dusky Cotton Bug

Oxycarenus laetus was considered to be the minor pest of Cotton but now it is going to become the possible threat to the early and late cotton crop in Pakistan. Sucking behavior of this insect disturbs the cotton crop at early as well as the late stages. It sucks the sap from the reproductive parts of plants and it can also deteriorate the seed quality. Besides damaging the seeds and the reproductive parts it also deteriorates the lint quality resulting in poor ginning of cotton fibers. It gives the staining to the lint and the lint of low quality gets the lower price in market. It is found on cotton, ladyfinger and other malvaceous plants.

5. Army Worm

Spodoptera litura is counted among the major insect pests of cotton crop in Pakistan. It damages the crop due to its chewing behavior. Mode of damage of armyworm is different as compared to that of other insect pests of cotton. Most important sign of its attack is the damaged leaves that are in the form of empty areas. It feeds the leaves in between the veins and the veinlets. Skeleton of the leaves dries up due to the inactivation of photosynthetic processes. This result in the loss of vigor of plant and the quality of boll is affected. Attacked fields have lower yield of bolls as compared to that of the healthy fields. IPM practices are there as there are many types of biological as well as cultural control methods of this insect. If none of the control methods seem to be working then chemical control is perhaps the last and considered to be most effective option for the control of insect pests of cotton. It is not a problem in BT Cotton.

4. American Boll Worm

Helicoverpa armigera is also called as the American bollworm and it is an important pest of chickpea and American Cotton. It is a polyphagous insect and is considered to damage a range of vegetable and other crops in Pakistan as well as other countries of South Asia. When it attacks the early stages it hollows the squares from inside and the damaged squares fall on the ground. It directly affects the cotton crop and results in lower yields. When the boll is mature it makes a prominent hole on the boll and results in the damage of the crop. The damage of American Bollworm is not observed in a uniform behavior rather it attacks in patches and affects the crop in patch. It shifts from one boll to another and damages dozens of bolls during life time. Biological control of this insect is the best option but in harsh conditions when biological control is not effective, chemical control serves as the only option for the control of American bollworm. It is not a problem in BT Cotton.

3. Spotted Boll Worm

Earias insulana is also called as the spotted bollworm of cotton. It damages many parts of cotton crop and most of the times it is found boring in the reproductive as well as the vegetative parts of cotton. Despite of its lower attack it is a threat to the cotton in the early season. Premature opening of cotton boll is said to be the most important indication of the attack of spotted bollworm. It deteriorates the lint quality and results in lesser profits. It is not a problem in BT Cotton.

2. Pink Boll Worm

Pectinophora gossypiella is one of the most destructive pests of cotton crop in Pakistan. It attacks the flowering stage when the female lays eggs on the base of flower. The larvae make a very small hole and move inside the flower. The affected boll fails to open or it opens in a very awkward fashion indicating the attack of pink boll worm. It hibernates in between the seeds and Double Seeds are also the best indication of the damaged seeds. Farmers should avoid the use of Double Seeds that are stuck together by the silken threads of pupal stage of this pest. Cotton sticks serve as the best hiding place for this insect. It is not a problem in BT Cotton.

1. Cotton Leaf Folder

Sylepta derogata is also called as the cotton leaf folder. As the name is indicating the pest makes the leaves to roll. The older larvae roll the edges of leaves with the help of silken threads and feed on the leaf tissues after making roll. American cotton is worse affected. It is not a problem in BT Cotton. Like all the other pest of cotton the control of this pest should be planned after the determination of threshold levels. Biological control is considered to be optimum in case of the ideal conditions of temperature and humidity. During harsh conditions, chemical control is only option left. Attack of this pest is less on Native Cotton or Local Cotton.

Source:http://www.seetoptens.com/

Understanding Common House and Garden Insecticides

Pesticides include any substances used to kill, control or repel pests. We use pesticides almost every day, from ant and roach sprays for the kitchen, to weed killers for the lawn, mildew cleaners for the bathroom and mosquito repellents outdoors. Pesticides have become a widely accepted way to keep our homes and gardens relatively pest-free. About 85% of all American households keep at least one pesticide in storage.

Despite our willingness to use them, most consumers associate pesticides with pollution, health risks and toxic chemicals. Surveys show that about 75% of consumers are wary of using pesticides in the home. Many people today are avoiding certain synthetic (man-made) pesticides in favor of natural or “organic” products. But regardless of whether a substance comes from natural or artificial sources, if it controls pests, it’s a pesticide. And as long as pests are around, chances are that we will use pesticides.

There are many types of pesticides. Insecticides are pesticides designed to control insects. Herbicides are pesticides designed to kill weeds. There are dozens of others. In this f@ctsheet we will learn about the different kinds of insecticides and how to choose the right one for the job.

Choosing the right formulation

The first decision to make when selecting a pesticide is what formulation to use. A formulation is the way the pesticide active ingredient is mixed with inert ingredients to make it convenient and effective to use. Factors that influence the choice of formulation include cost, convenience in mixing and use, effectiveness against your target pest and safety. The following table describes the most important types of insecticide formulations and how they should be used.

Table 1. Various types and uses of insecticide formulations.

Type	Description	Where and how to use	Relative Safety	Cost
Dust	An insecticide active ingredient is sprayed onto a finely ground dust.	Dusts are best used to deliver an insecticide to difficult-to-reach areas. Common uses include treatment of ants in a wall, or wasps in the ground. Ants and other social insects will track the applied dust deeper into a nest. Dusts are often sold for garden use, but application there is inefficient and much of the insecticide is likely to be blown or washed off the intended target. Best to apply with a crank duster or squeeze bottle designed for applying dusts.	Low to moderate. Easy to inhale, may drift from the intended target site.	Low
Granular	Insecticide is sprayed onto an inert, absorptive granule; usually consisting of clay, ground corn cob, or nut husks.	Granular insecticides are designed to provide control of soil dwelling insects. They are less effective against surface crawling pests, unless these also spend much time underground in the treatment zone. Commonly used for control of ants, grubs, millipedes, etc. Easy to apply with a rotary, drop, or hand-held seed spreader.	High. Because insecticide is impregnated inside an inert carrier, spills are easily contained and little exposure risk to exposed skin.	Low
Aerosol	Insecticide mixed with gas in a metal can. Can be designed to produce a various particle sizes from fine aerosol to liquid stream.	Easy to use and apply, designed for application of residual sprays for crawling insects as well as for aerosol fogs for flying insects, depending on product. Commonly sold for ant and roach control, or flying insect control. Despite the impression given by advertisements, aerosol fogs do not penetrate well into cracks and crevices where pests hide.	Low to moderate. Some formulations are flammable. Solvents may add to toxicity, and exposure risk to skin is higher. Empty cans should be wrapped in newspaper for disposal to prevent accidental punctures.	High
Baits	Consist of an insecticide mixed with a food or attractant to entice the insect to ingest. Come in various forms including pellets, dusts, gels, liquids and granules.	One of the most effective control methods for controlling social insects, like ants and termites. Also very effective on cockroaches and crickets. Various ways to apply.	High safety due to the low percentage active ingredient needed to produce control. Containerized baits are exceptionally safe. Broadcast treatments of low rates is generally the safest application method.	Low to moderate
Spray – Ready to Use (RTU)	Premixed liquid, usually in a pump spray bottle or as a hose-end attachment.	Designed for convenience, RTU sprays require the user to just point and pump or attach to a garden hose. No mixing required. Usually designed for tree, lawn and garden sprays, flea sprays.	Moderate. Because there is no mixing, risk of your exposure to the concentrate is eliminated. User should avoid exposure to spray drift by using gloves and long-sleeves.	Moderate to high
Spray – Concentrate	Concentrated active ingredient in an emulsion or solution. Designed to be mixed with water before application.	Wide range of uses include both indoor and outdoor sprays, lawn and garden sprays and soil drenches.	Higher risk because of need to mix concentrated product and potential for exposure to spillage, drift or splashing.	Low

Source:http://citybugs.tamu.edu

The great Cold War potato beetle battle

By Lucy Burns BBC World Service

In 1950 the East German government claimed the Americans were dropping potato beetles out of planes over GDR fields in an attempt to sabotage their crops. Was it true, or an example of Cold War propaganda?

On 23 May 1950, farmer Max Troeger noticed two American planes flying over his fields in the East German village of Schoenfels bei Zwickau.

The next morning - according to an East German government leaflet - he was shocked to discover that his fields were covered with Colorado potato beetles, an insect which can devastate potato crops.

First described in 1824, the beetle had presented a major threat to European crops when it had first arrived with potatoes imported from the US in the late 19th Century.

Was America deliberately dropping these beasties over the socialist East German state to sabotage its harvest and undermine its post-war reconstruction?

The East German press reported a number of other cases in which planes flying overhead had been followed by a plague of potato beetles. Politicians raged against the "six-legged ambassadors of the American invasion" and a government report described "a criminal attack by American imperialist warmongers on our people's food supply".

So the country began to mobilise against the enemy insects.

There was a huge propaganda campaign - leaflets, posters, stories in the press - depicting the potato beetles as tiny American soldiers in army boots or helmets. They were called Amikafer - Yankee beetles.

Children all over East Germany were sent out to collect the beetles after school.

"We were told that potato beetles were pests, and that they were eating our fields bare," says Ingo Materna, who was 18 at the time.

"We would go down the rows of potatoes and everyone would try to pick up as many beetles as they could, maybe 20 or 25 in a day. And then we would put them in pots or little glass jars and they would be taken away and destroyed.

"The really dangerous ones were the larvae, because they eat the most," says Materna.

"They were sort of fleshy and soft, and we had to pick them up with our fingers - we didn't have tweezers or rubber gloves.

"The girls in particular didn't like it… We didn't want to touch them either, but what could we do?"

The East German government issued a number of books and leaflets aimed specifically at schoolchildren

Colorado beetles had already been common in Germany before the war, says Erhard Geissler, an expert in biological warfare at the Max Delbruck Centre for Molecular Medicine, who has researched the history of the pests.

Potato beetles

• The Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) is native to south-west North America and was first described by Thomas Say in 1824
• The beetle spread to Europe and Asia with potato imports in the late 19th and early 20th Century
• An adult beetle is around 10mm long and is orange or yellow with black or brown stripes
• The beetle's main food is potato leaves - a single larva can eat 40 sq cm of leaf per day
• A single female beetle can lay up to 800 eggs in her lifetime
• Colorado potato beetles are very hard to get rid of as they are resistant to all major insecticide classes
• Colorado potato beetles are not established in the UK where they are a quarantine pest

And in 1950, there were indeed many more of them in the fields. But, there were plenty of other reasons why that might have been the case, says Geissler.

"There was not enough pesticide available because not enough was being produced, and what was produced was mainly sent straight to the Soviet Union.

"There was not enough technical advice on pesticides, and motivation among farm workers was also very low at that time - a lot of male workers who had been soldiers, were still in the Soviet Union."

Many East Germans did believe that the Americans were to blame, however.

"I found that a majority of older people, particularly in rural areas, remembered it had been the US imperialist who spread the beetles from the aeroplanes," says Geissler.

Eighteen-year-old Ingo Materna, had a different view. "We didn't take it seriously at all," he says.

Even though he and his friends were dutifully picking the beetles up, they weren't convinced by the story of the capitalist plot.

"The idea that the Americans were dropping them - of course, that was nonsense."

This was the period of the Cold War, a time of heightened mistrust between East and West.

For Materna - who shared his memories as part of an oral history project, Memory of the Nation - the government was seizing every opportunity to accuse the Americans of bad behaviour.

Continue reading the main story

Beetle warfare

• The French considered importing beetles from the US and dropping them over Germany after World War I - but the plan was abandoned due to fears it might also damage French agriculture
• In World War II, both Britain and Germany were concerned that the enemy might use potato beetles against them. This would have been particularly damaging in Britain, where the potato beetle was still largely unknown
• German experts dismissed as "improbable" the idea that the Allies might have been planning to use beetles as a biological weapon - the British would have not have been able to breed sufficient supplies and the French would have struggled to smuggle them over the border undetected

"Some of the stories were probably true and some of them definitely weren't," he says. "This beetle story was one of the ones that wasn't."

Whatever the origin of the beetles, they did pose a serious threat to East German crops.

"Potatoes were the main thing we had to eat in East Germany at the time," remembers Geissler, who grew up in Leipzig.

"My father and mother and I would all share a single potato for breakfast. We were shocked to hear that our food supply was under threat."

Materna, too, recalls the importance of eliminating the beetles.

"We had just survived World War II. I had lived under all four occupying powers - we had been through a lot," he says.

"So if there were potato beetles, we needed to get rid of them, so we had enough potatoes. It was as simple as that."

The idea of planes dropping potato beetles over enemy fields was not entirely far-fetched.

For one thing, US planes were often flying low over some parts of East Germany at the time - delivering supplies to West Berlin.

And, says Erhard Geissler, several governments had already considered the possibilities of the potato beetle as a weapon - although he has found no evidence that they were ever actually used in practice.

The British considered dropping them over Germany during World War I, for example. And although Hitler had prohibited active research into biological weapons, a small group of German scientists performed a number of tests dropping specially-bred potato beetles out of planes in 1943. The idea was soon abandoned.

In East Germany in 1950, the Ministry of Agriculture commissioned a report to back up its allegations that the Americans were dropping beetles out of aircraft, including interviews with eyewitnesses and experts.

But the "experts" quoted in the research had never published previously on potato beetles or any other invasive species, Geissler says, and the committee was mainly made up of politicians, not scientists.

And so, he concludes, the story was aimed at covering the government's own inability to fight the beetles, and provided a handy extra accusation to hurl at the Americans.

He believes that the East German government did not believe the story themselves. "They were not stupid. They had political convictions and they were concerned by the increasing danger of the developing Cold War, but I do not think they were stupid enough to believe their own propaganda.

"There is no factual basis for the story about the Yankee beetles at all."

Lucy Burns was reporting for Witness - which airs weekdays on BBC World Service radio. You can hear her report on the potato beetles here.

You can follow the Magazine on Twitter and on Facebook

Source

Pest management can increase agro-production

Friday, July-12-2013

Agricultural production can be increased manifold with the adoption of the latest pest management practices that will reduce agricultural losses worth million of rupees.

This was stated by speakers at 2nd Post Graduate Entomological Research Council's seminar, which was arranged by Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.

As many as 53 students presented their research papers in the shape of oral and poster presentations. It was aimed at providing a platform to the students to showcase their research work in comparative environment. Dr Abdus Salam stressed the need to give the awareness among the farmers community about the various plant diseases and their precaution. He said Pakistan is losing its crops worth million of rupees because of attack of different insects.

He called for stepping up efforts on the part of stakeholders, scientists and entomologists to address the issue. He was of the view that conference will help farmers in the form of mapping out a comprehensive plan to reduce the agricultural damages.

Dr Jalal Arif said that plant diagnostic lab will be set up at his department that will work round the clock. He added that the lab will facilitate the farming community in diagnosing the plant diseases. He also stressed the need to promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM) which is an effective and environmentally sensitive approach to pest management. Talking about citrus, he said Pakistan is earning foreign exchange by exporting the citrus but greening disease is a major challenge confronting the sector. He said if tangibles steps are not taken, the country will be left with no citrus after a couple of decades.

Dr Anjum Sohail said that our agro-production is low compared to developed world because of improper or un-integrated pest management practices. In Pakistan, cotton crop is attacked by about 150 types of insect pests, he added. Dr Ehsanullah, Dr Aslam Pervez, Dr Mansoor-ul-Hassan Sahi, Dr Zahir Ahmad Zahir, Dr Waseem Akram, Dr Jaffar Jaskani, Dr Dildar Gogi, Dr Muhammad Sagheer, Dr Khuraam Zia, Dr Jam Nazir, Dr Zain-ul-Abadien, Dr Ahmad Nawaz, Dr Arshad, Dr Waqas Wakeel, and Scientists from Ayub Research Hafiz Saleem, Dr Amjad Ali and Dr Abrar were also take part in the seminar. 

Source: Business Recorder
News Collected by agrinfobank.com Team

Biodiversity Of Staphylinids Of Punjab, Pakistan

Rove beetles belong to the largest family (Staphylinidae) of beetles in the order Coleoptera of the Class Insecta. Because of their cosmopolitan distribution with broad latitudinal ranges, they are known to play important role as pollinators, decomposers and scavengers.The studies on their biodiversity including the species richness, distribution pattern and seasonal abundance were unknown with respect to their role in ecological system in Punjab, Pakistan.The present study is therefore, being carried out to study the biodiversity of Staphylinidae in different ecological regions of Punjab. For this purpose, collection was made from cropped area (8 localities) and forest area (3 localities) of the Punjab, Pakistan with 5 different collecting methods; pitfall trapping, flight intercept trapping, light trapping, Berlese funnel trapping and sweep netting during 2008 and 2009.

Population was collected for four days after every two months from each locality during the entire collection period.Relative humidity (%), temperature (CO) and soil moisture contents (%) were also recorded for all the localities. In the cropped areas, 1083 specimens belonging to 5 subfamilies, 15 genera and 26 pecies were collected and identified.Paederus fuscipes Curt.was the species with the highest population (32%) overall while Tachyporus himalyicus Bernh. was with lowest population (0.4%).It was found that some species preferred some crops, e.g., Paederus fuscipes was found only in cropped areas preferably in maize and berseem crops and Oxytellus Gr. genus was found mostly in plant and leaf debris. Astilbus mixtus Cam. was found associated with termites in the sandy areas only. High Shannon weaver index value (2.572) was found from Rahim Yar Khan and lowest value (1.82) was found from Rawalpindi during 2008. In the forest areas, mostly species were collected from Changa Manga (46.67%) during 2008 and from Muridwala (38.33%) during 2009. Some species were found missing in the forest areas like Paederus fuscipes, Astilbus mixtus etc. Association between collecting methods and localities was also determined.This association was found positive only for locality 1 (Lahore). No association was found between years and localities. Most Staphylinidae were collected through pit fall traps and least was found with FIT’S. Most Staphylinidae were collected during July-August.There was also a positive correlation between relative humidity, soil moisture contents and rove beetles. Dry soils had less rove beetles as compared to the moist soils. If the soil moisture contents will be more, there will be no space for air between the soil particles then the rove beetles will be less because of mortality due to suffocation.On the basis of coefficients of association calculated from different biotic (crops and other insects) and abiotic factors (temperature, relative humidity, soil moisture contents) that were faced by the collected species, the specimens belonging to different Staphylinidae species have been arranged into five groups with five species treated as separate on the basis of their habitat, locality, abundance and their status.

Source: Nasir, Shabab (2011) Biodiversity Of Staphylinids Of Punjab, Pakistan. PhD thesis, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad .

Sustainable Management Of Whitefly, Bemisia Tabaci (genn.) (homoptera: Aleyrodidae)

Studies were conducted on the sustainable management of whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Genn.) on available genotypes of Bt cotton at Faisalabad during 2005-06.The data obtained was correlated with ambient weather factors to determine the role of abiotic factors in population fluctuation.Various physico-morphic and chemical plant characters were correlated with the population of the whitefly with the aim to find their role in the life activities of the pest on Bt-cotton and sustainable management of whitefly by integrating the safest insecticide to Chrysoperla carnea.The results, during 2005 and 2006 on an average basis, revealed significant difference among genotypes regarding population of whitefly per leaf.

On an average basis both the study years FH-114 appeared comparatively resistant showing minimum population of whitefly per leaf i.e. 2.59 while FH-113 showed susceptible trend with maximum population of whitefly i.e. 2.84 per leaf. Significant difference was observed among dates of observation regarding population fluctuation of the whitefly. During 2005, the third week of July showed maximum peak i.e. 4.81 whitefly per leaf.During 2006, the population of whitefly reached to maximum peak i.e. 6.65 per leaf during 3rd week of September. The study on the population dynamic of the whitefly showed that rainfall during 2006 had negative and significant correlation with the population of whitefly per leaf on BT cotton. Multiple linear regression analysis of variance indicated that minimum temperature was the most important factor. Physico-morphic characters showed significant and positive correlation with the population of whitefly having r-values of 0.613**, 0.428*, 0.660**, 0.716**, 0.486* and 0.725**, respectively.Hair length and thickness of leaf lamina exerted negative and significant effect on the pest population with r-values of -0.654** and - 0.446*, respectively.Hair density on lamina and hair length on midrib and vein showed non-significant effect on the pest population. Multivariate linear regression model for hair density on midrib was found to be the most important plant character which contributed maximum i.e. 42.72% role in population fluctuation of whitefly on BT cotton.The 100R2 value was calculated to be 85.47 when the effect of all physical plant characters was computed together. Nitrogen percentage in the leaves of BT cotton showed maximum impact i.e. 32.92 percent in population fluctuation of the pest and appeared to be the most important.Study regarding integrating the safest insecticide to Chrysoperla carnea showed that buprofezin has minimum mortality of the pest and proved to be the safest for all three larval instar and pupal and adult stage of C. carnea and Endosulfan proved to be the most toxic to all life stages of the predator. Whitefly population was decreased by increasing the number of cards and 988 cards/ha integrated with the application of buprofezin showed the best results with minimum population of whitefly and maximum increase in seed cotton yield.

Reference: Zia, Khuram (2011) Sustainable Management Of Whitefly, Bemisia Tabaci (genn.) (homoptera: Aleyrodidae) In Transgenic Cotton. PhD thesis, University of Agriculture, Faisalab

Steps in Pest Management

1Identify the pest problem.This is the first and most important step in pest control—figuring out exactly what you’re up against. Some pests (or signs of them) are unmistakable—most  people recognize a cockroach or a mouse. Other signs that make you think “pest” can be misleading. For example, what may look like a plant “disease” may be, in fact, a sign of poor soil  or lack of water.

2 Decide how much pest control is necessary. Pest control is not the same as pest elimination. Insisting on getting rid of all pests inside and outside your home will lead you to make more extensive, repeated, and possibly hazardous chemical treatments than are necessary. Be reasonable. Ask yourself these questions:

1. 
   Does your lawn really need to be totally weed free?
2. 
   Recognizing that some insects are beneficial to your lawn, do you need to get rid of all of them?
3. 
   Do you need every type of fruit, vegetable, or flower you grow, or could you replace ones that are sensitive to pests with hardier substitutes?
4. 
   Can you tolerate some blemished fruits and vegetables from your garden?
5. 
   Is anyone in your home known to be particularly sensitive to chemicals?

3 Choose an effective option. Use the information gathered in Step 1, your answers to the questions in Step 2, and guidance in the sections titled “Preventing Pests,” “Using Non-Chemical Pest  Controls,” and “Using Chemical Pest Controls” to determine  which option you want to choose. If you’re still uncertain, get further advice from the free sources listed in Step 1.

4 Evaluate the results. Once a pest control method has been chosen and implemented, always allow time for it to work and then evaluate its effectiveness by taking the following steps:
u  Compare pre-treatment and post-treatment conditions. Is there evidence of a clear reduction in the number of pests?
u  Weigh the benefits of short-term chemical pesticide control against the benefits of long-term control using a variety of other treatments, including non- chemical methods.

Papaya fruit fly

Species name	Bactrocera papayae
What does it look like?	The Asian papaya fruit fly is about the same length as a common housefly but more slender. It grows to 7 mm in length and has clear wings, generally black chest and a paler abdomen with a distinctive black T-shaped marking on the back. The Queensland fruit fly, by comparison, is much the same size but is an overall reddish-brown colour. An expert eye is needed to identify papaya fruit fly under a microscope.
Where does it occur?	Papaya fruit fly is endemic in Thailand, Malaysia, Borneo, Indonesia and Singapore. It has been present in Papua New Guinea since 1992. In March 1993, it was detected for the first time in Australian territory on the islands of Saibai, Boigu and Dauan, adjacent to the Papua New Guinea coast; and on Stephen and Darnley Islands close to the centre of Torres Strait. Papaya fruit fly moves into the Torres Strait with the monsoonal winds each wet season and is eradicated annually as part of a proactive containment strategy administered by Biosecurity Queensland and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. In October 1995, the detection of papaya fruit fly near Cairns initiated a major eradication campaign. This pest was successfully eradicated from the Cairns region in 1998, but Biosecurity Queensland remains vigilant and maintains a surveillance and trapping program throughout the state to ensure early detection should the pest reach the mainland of Queensland again.
Symptoms and damage	What makes this pest such a problem is that it infests twice the number of fruit types as the Queensland fruit fly (209 compared with 116), many of them at a greener stage. As a result of the pest's heavy infestation habits, revised field control strategies would be needed should it become established in horticulture production regions. Earlier applications of spray regimes and more intensive or regular treatments will be required in some crops, because of the higher levels of damage papaya fruit fly can inflict and its tendency to attack some fruit at a greener stage. Many countries have trade restrictions on fruit that come from regions known to have papaya fruit fly. Should this exotic fruit fly species establish in Queensland, growers may face market access difficulties when exporting their produce.
Life cycle	Adult female flies lay their eggs just under the skin of fruit, depositing fruit decaying bacteria at the same time. Within one to two days, the eggs hatch into maggots (larvae) which feed on the decaying fruit, causing premature fruit drop. Considerable damage can occur inside the flesh before obvious signs of infestation can be seen on the fruit. The most obvious signs of infestation are small discoloured patches on the skin, which develop from punctures or stings made by the female as she lays her eggs. It takes 7-12 days for the larvae to leave the fruit to develop into pupae in the soil. Adults emerge from the pupae in another 10-14 days, and become sexually mature after one to two weeks. They live for several months and are capable of reproducing throughout their life span. Like most tropical fruit fly species, papaya fruit fly multiplies rapidly and can disperse over large distances. It is capable of establishing in any of the mainland states of Australia.
Surveillance	Biosecurity Queensland monitors a network of traps for papaya fruit fly in high-risk urban and remote centres in Queensland. The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service is responsible for papaya fruit fly surveillance on each inhabited island in Torres Strait. Biosecurity Queensland acts quickly with well planned eradication strategies whenever papaya fruit fly is detected on Queensland territory. Early detection of this pest greatly enhances the likelihood that the pest could be eradicated again if it re-establishes in mainland Queensland.

GMO Agriculture and Chemical Pesticides are Killing the Honeybees

By Dr Joseph Mercola

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to protect honeybees from neonicotinoid pesticides, according to a lawsuit against the agency, filed by beekeepers and environmental groups. Said Paul Towers, spokesperson for the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), one of the groups involved in the lawsuit:

“Despite our best efforts to warn the agency about the problems posed by neonicotinoids, the EPA continued to ignore the clear warning signs of an ag system in trouble.”

Lawsuit Maintains the Link Between Neonicotinoids and Honeybees Die Off Is ‘Crystal Clear’

Neonicotinoid pesticides are a newer class of chemicals that are applied to seeds before planting. This allows the pesticide to be taken up through the plant’s vascular system as it grows, where it is expressed in the pollen and nectar.

These insecticides are highly toxic to Honeybees because they are systemic, water soluble, and pervasive. They get into the soil and groundwater where they can accumulate and remain for many years and present long-term toxicity to the hive as well as to other species, such as songbirds.

Neonicotinoids affect insects’ central nervous systems in ways that are cumulative and irreversible. Even minute amounts can have profound effects over time.

The disappearance of bee colonies began accelerating in the United States shortly after the EPA allowed these new insecticides on the market in the mid-2000s. The lawsuit alleges that the EPA allowed the neonicotinoids to remain on the market despite clear warning signs of a problem.

It also alleges the EPA acted outside of the law by allowing conditional registration of the pesticides, a measure that allows a product to enter the market despite the absence of certain data.

European Food Safety Authority Ruled Neonicotinoids ‘Unacceptable’

The EPA’s continued allowance of neonicotinoids becomes all the more irresponsible in light of recent findings by other government organizations. Earlier this year, for instance, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released a report that ruled neonicotinoid insecticides are essentially “unacceptable” for many crops.1 The European Commission asked EFSA to assess the risks associated with the use of three common neonicotinoids – clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam – with particular focus on:

Their acute and chronic effects on bee colony survival and development

Their effects on bee larvae and bee behavior

The risks posed by sub-lethal doses of the three chemicals

One of the glaring issues that EFSA came across was a widespread lack of information, with scientists noting that in some cases gaps in data made it impossible to conduct an accurate risk assessment. Still, what they did find was “a number of risks posed to bees” by the three neonicotinoid insecticides. The Authority found that when it comes to neonicotinoid exposure from residues in nectar and pollen in the flowers of treated plants:2

“…only uses on crops not attractive to honeybees were considered acceptable.”

As for exposure from dust produced during the sowing of treated seeds, the Authority ruled “a risk to honeybees was indicated or could not be excluded…” Unfortunately, neonicotinoids have become the fastest growing insecticides in the world. In the US, virtually all genetically engineered Bt corn crops are treated with neonicotinoids.

Serious Risks to Bees Already Established

One of the observed effects of these insecticides is weakening of the bee’s immune system. Forager bees bring pesticide-laden pollen back to the hive, where it’s consumed by all of the bees.

Six months later, their immune systems fail, and they fall prey to secondary, seemingly “natural” bee infections, such as parasites, mites, viruses, fungi and bacteria. Pathogens such as Varroa mites, Nosema, fungal and bacterial infections, and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) are found in large amounts in honeybee hives on the verge of collapse.

Serious honeybee die-offs have been occurring around the world for the past decade but no one knows exactly why the bees are disappearing.

The phenomenon, dubbed Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), is thought to be caused by a variety of imbalances in the environment, although agricultural practices such as the use of neonicotinoid pesticides are receiving growing attention as more research comes in. As written in the journal Nature:3

“Social bee colonies depend on the collective performance of many individual workers. Thus, although field-level pesticide concentrations can have subtle or sublethal effects at the individual level, it is not known whether bee societies can buffer such effects or whether it results in a severe cumulative effect at the colony level. Furthermore, widespread agricultural intensification means that bees are exposed to numerous pesticides when foraging, yet the possible combinatorial effects of pesticide exposure have rarely been investigated.”

This is what the Nature study set out to determine, and it was revealed that bees given access to neonicotinoid and pyrethroid pesticides were adversely affected in numerous ways, including:

Fewer adult worker bees emerged from larvae

A higher proportion of foragers failed to return to the nest

A higher death rate among worker bees

An increased likelihood of colony failure

The researchers said:

“Here we show that chronic exposure of bumble bees to two pesticides (neonicotinoid and pyrethroid) at concentrations that could approximate field-level exposure impairs natural foraging behavior and increases worker mortality leading to significant reductions in brood development and colony success.

We found that worker foraging performance, particularly pollen collecting efficiency, was significantly reduced with observed knock-on effects for forager recruitment, worker losses and overall worker productivity. Moreover, we provide evidence that combinatorial exposure to pesticides increases the propensity of colonies to fail.”

Why the Food Supply Could Be Dependent on Urgent Action by the EPA

The EPA acknowledges that “pesticide poisoning” may be one factor leading to colony collapse disorder,4 yet they have been slow to act to protect bees from this threat. The current lawsuit may help spur them toward more urgent action, which is desperately needed as the food supply hangs in the balance.

There are about 100 crop species that provide 90 percent of food globally. Of these, 71 are pollinated by bees.5 In the US alone, a full one-third of the food supply depends on pollination from bees. Apple orchards, for instance, require one colony of bees per acre to be adequately pollinated. So if bee colonies continue to be devastated, major food shortages could result.

There is also concern that the pesticides could be impacting other pollinators as well, including bumblebees, hoverflies, butterflies, moths and others, which could further impact the environment.

Four Steps to Help Protect the Bees

If you would like to learn more about the economic, political and ecological implications of the worldwide disappearance of the honeybee, check out the documentary film Vanishing of the Bees. If you’d like to get involved, here are four actions you can take to help preserve and protect our honeybees:

Support organic farmers and shop at local farmer’s markets as often as possible. You can “vote with your fork” three times a day. (When you buy organic, you are making a statement by saying “no” to GMOs and toxic pesticides!)

Cut the use of toxic chemicals in your house and on your lawn, and use only organic, all-natural forms of pest control.

Better yet, get rid of your lawn altogether and plant a garden or other natural habitat. Lawns offer very little benefit for the environment. Both flower and vegetable gardens provide excellent natural honeybee habitats.

Become an amateur beekeeper. Having a hive in your garden requires only about an hour of your time per week, benefits your local ecosystem, and you can enjoy your own honey!

^{Source: Global Research}

Beekeeping: Pests of honey Bees

I. Introduction

Honey bees are attacked by a number of enemies and take a heavy toll of bee life and their destructive activities result in desertion of hives by bees. Bee enemies are described under two categories namely insects and vertebrates. The control measures for each of these pests is different as the nature of their damage is different.

ll. Insects

Insects like ants, wasps, wax moths etc, pose a serious threat to bees. Ants take virtually everything in the hive, wasps and hornets generally cause the bees to abscond. The wax moth causes damage both to bee-colonies and to the bee products. A brief account of these enemies, with possible suggestions to reduce the loss and to acquaint the bee-keepers with knowledge which may be needed any time, is given here.

1. Ants

Various species of ants i.e.. Conponotus compressus (carpenter ant), Dorglus labiatus (red ant), Monomorium and Solenopsis spp (fire ant), have been reported causing problem to both traditional beekeeping with Apis cerana and to modem beekeeping with Apis mellifera.

Damages

Ants are among the most common predators of honey bees in India. Ants being highly social insects, they attack the hive en- masse, taking virtually everything in them. They take away honey, brood, pollen, dead bees and other debris. In addition to this destruction, they also cause nuisance and sometimes pain to the beekeeper as well.

Control

Some of the precautions to reduce the damage caused by the ants are given here.

(i) Maintain the bee colony sufficiently strong enough. Usually populous strong colony succeeds in keeping the ants at bay.

(ii) As the ants live in underground colonies, their nests should be destroyed by fumigating them with two to four table-spoons of carbon disulphide or by pouring into them 9 -10 litres of BHC suspension or 0.1 % Aldrin emulsion or 0.33 kg of 40% Chlorodane (wettable powder) in 15 litres of water and scaling them with mud. It should preferably be applied at a time when the bees are not active.

(iii) Bee colonies can be kept free from ants by placing the hives on stands with their legs in earthen cups containing water. Since bees mostly drink from it, the water should be pure.

(iv) The legs of the hive stand may be painted with used engine oil or wounded round with tape soaked in corrosive sublimate to serve as a good repellent for ants. This needs renewing once or twice a month.

(v) A newly installed bee-hive should be visited frequently to check the invasion of ants.

2. Wasps

Several species of wasps, like Vespa orientals (yellow wasp), Vespa auraia (golden wasp), Vespa magnifica (black wasp), etc. are found in Indian plains and hills. The life cycle of the wasps mostly starts with fecundate female wasps, which starts making new nests in spring. The worker wasps, on emergence help their mothers and take over the field work, since wasps too are social insects like bees. The nest becomes populous during the monsoon and autumn. The population of a nest is at its peak during autumn. At tile end of autumn, all types of wasps, except fecundate females die out. The fecundate females pass their winter under the cover of nooks and crevices and start building nests in coming spring.

Damages

Wasps are predaceous by nature and catch bees from blossoms or at the entrance of a hive. Weak colonies become their special targets. The attacking behaviour of the wasps is described in three phases (i) hunting phase, (ii) slaughtering phase and (iii) occupation phase.

Hunting phase

Initially a hunting phase is observed, when the wasps capture the slow -flying bees or one bee at a time. It happens usually near the entrance of a weak colony's hive or bee flying near the flowers to collect pollen or nectar.

Slaughtering phase

If the colony is found to be weak one, a slaughtering phase sets in. A few wasps 30 -50 in number attack a weak colony en-masse, using their strong jaws to maul the bees and dropping the dead on the ground. If this phase continues long enough the colony under attack would have lost most of its defender workers. The colony becomes very weak to resist any attack by the wasps.

Occupational phase

In a very weak colony, the wasps invade and occupy the inside of the hive. They consume, all honey, brood and carry them to their own nest.

Control

The following precautionary measures are suggest to reduce tile risk of wasps.

(i) The best method to get rid of wasps is to kill the fecundate females early in the spring, when they start making new nests. A part time workers team can be arranged by co-operatives or big apiaries or government, for killing queen wasp in an area before the breeding season.

(ii) Destroying all the nests of the wasps in the vicinity of the apiaries. This can be done in two ways, one by burning with kerosene torch and second by fumigation or spraying or dusting insecticides like 5% benzene hexachloride emulsion or 10% D.D. T. Sometimes it is difficult to find the nest of the wasps, since wasps can fly to a longer distance and come from a considerable distance in search of bees. This creates problem in finding the nest of the wasps. A simple technique to find the nest is to capture the wasp, tie a 15 cm long thread around its thorax and then it is released and followed till it reaches the nest. Then the nest is destroyed as mentioned above.

(iii) An effort to kill the wasps at the entrance of the hive with the help of fly flappers or wooden strips is sometimes useful in the early spring. But generally it is time consuming and laborious.

3. Wax moths

A number of moths, like Galleria melionellas (the greater wax- moth), Achroia grisella (the lesser wax-motIl), Ephestia kuhniella (flour moth), Ephestia cantelia (fig moth), Plodia inter-punctela (meal moth), etc, are noticed in combs, but their damage is occasional. The greater wax -moth is by far the most serious threat to combs, while the lesser wax -moth is a comparatively minor pest. The life cycle of the greater wax-moth may be completed in six -weaks to six months. This depend upon climate temperature and nature of the natural food. At normal temperature of 30 -35 0 C, an egg may become an adult in about seven weeks. The pest remains active from March to October. In localities with comparatively warm winters, all stages of the pests are met within hive through out the year. The most probable period of emergence of adults is in March and April. The males and females mate within a day and female then enters the hive usually at night and lay egg-clusters in hidden places like cracks and crevices and sometimes in open surface.

The incubation period of eggs at 350 C is about a week. Young caterpillars are exceedingly active and cause much damage. How long they live in caterpillar condition depends upon temperature and abundance of proper food. It may vary from a month to five months. The pest hibernates in store combs (honey combs) in the caterpillar form and pupal form. Depending upon the temperature, the adult moths may emerge in a week or after two months.

Damages

Wax moths are most destructive in warmer areas. The preferred food of the wax moth larvae is the larval skins and the pupal cases that line the brood cells and pollens. In the process of securing these portions of the comb the larvae tend to destroy the whole comb with bored pathway, and leave a trail of faecal matter and webbing. The grater wax moth larvae do even greater damage when they pupate. Its caterpillar eats old combs, propolis, pollen, cast larval skins and other such proteinaceous matter, but they cannot live on pure bee wax. They have no use of honey or brood but the bees emerged from such larva infected hives are mostly malformed. Larvae may tunnel through newly built comb, but gradually shrink in size and eventually are starved to death because they cannot digest pure beeswax.

Almost all colonies of Apis indica, Apis dorsata, Apis flora and Apis mellifera are infested with this pest chronically and the caterpillars actively sabotage or undo the work of colonies continuously. They suddenly acquire a dangerous importance during a dearth period and the monsoon and make the colonies desert their nests. The deserted colonies become further source of infection for newly established colonies or swarms.

The first indication of the entry of the female moth and development of the larvae in the hive or comb is the presence of small masses of minute particles of wax outside the holes of the hive. Later, faint webbings are perceptible over some cells of the comb. When infestation has progressed far enough, silken tunnels with caterpillars wriggling in them are noticed and eventually the whole comb is a mass of webbings in which the excreta of the caterpillars is enmeshed. In severe cases of infestation, further brood rearing is topped, field work is virtually suspended and the colony deserts.

Control

No practical chemotherapeutic measures exist for controlling the wax moth in live honey bee colonies. Some of the preventive measures are given here.

(i) A newly established colony can be kept free from infection by the vigilant beekeepers, who do not allow culprit female moths to enter the colony, by reducing the size of the entrance gate. The bee keeper should be skilled enough to remove the caterpillars and keep the hive clean by removing debris consisting of gnawed pieces of comb, fallen wax scales, loose pollen pellets on the bottom board.

(ii) Strong populous, colonies are more liable to resist the pest attack. Weak colonies should be strengthened by adding brood frames and their queen replaced.

(iii) The hive resistance can be increased by keeping the hive tight fitting and by obliterating the cracks and crevices with a mixture or rosin and puttie used for fixing glass panes or moulding clay or bee wax.

(iv) All tile combs which the bees do not cover with brood should be removed particularly during dearth period.

(v) All space drawn combs should be kept in empty hive bodies in tiers and closed both at the bottom and top. The joints of hive bodies should be covered by gummed tape or wet clay and the stacks of 4 -5 hive bodies kept moth proof. The new stacks should be disinfected with sulphur fumes by burning sulphur over live charcoal at the rate of one ounce for 3.5 cubic feet space. Fumigation has to be repeated at fortnightly interval.

(vi) After fumigation, the combs should be stored in moth tight hive bodies and para-dichlorobenzene (PDB) crystals, 103/2 cub. feet, or naphthalene flakes should be spread over the top.

III. Vertebrates

Various kinds of animals like toads, frogs, snakes, lizards, bee-eating birds, monkey, badgers, bear etc are enemies of bees and bee colonies. The destructive role of these amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals is described below.

1. Amphibians

Amphibians like Hufa melanastictus (toads) and Rana limnoclzaris (frog) often attack and cause a substantial fall in colony population. The detection of this problem generally requires close observation. When toads and frogs are preying heavily on the bee colonies, they scatter in front of the hive entrance their faecal dark brown droppings. If these dry faecal deposits are spread apart with a twig or brush, the remains of bee parts can be seen, confirming the severe attack on bees by frogs and toads.

Damages

Continuous predation by toads and frogs, results in a loss of colony strength. Some colonies with moderate or relatively large worker populations can withstand the predation and subsequently recover their full strength. Weaker colonies are at considerable risk, The attacking patterns of toads and frogs are quite similar. On arriving at the colony, the amphibians wait in the vicinity of the hive entrance, preying on passing bees. Colonies close to the ground provide easy access to the predators, for which guard bees at the hive entrance are easy preys. If the attackers are small enough to squeeze through the hive entrance of a relatively weak colony, the outcome is of devastating bee colony.

Control

In some circumstances predation on honey bees by amphibians cannot be overlooked. The beekeeper should not look on the problem as a minor one. Some suggested control measures are:

(i) placing the hives on stands 40 -60 cm high is usually sufficient as a protective measure.

(ii) where large numbers of the predators tend to congregate near the colony, fencing it with fine mesh may be found necessary, and

(iii) other methods such as trapping, baiting or poisoning have not been recommended.

2. Reptiles

Reptiles like snakes, lizards, geckos etc. are the most commonly found damaging commercial apiaries. Gecko gecko (tokag) is about 35 cm in length, lizards measuring about 25 cm from head to tail. Smaller lizards, such as the Hemidactylus frebatus (gecko) often hide in the empty spaces between the outer and inner cover of the hive. It sometimes stray very close to the hive or accommodates itself comfortably between the lid and the hive body.

Damages

Arboreal reptiles such as many geckos and snakes can attack bees either near the hive entrance or at the limbs of flowering trees visited by foragers. Lizards accommodated inside the hive find very convenient in feeding on bees indefinitely and causes the sudden loss of the queen from weak colony. Lizards prefer dead bees, they will eat live ones as well. A worker bee, acting as a scavenger, will pounce on an old, lazy or sick bee and try to tear the victim's wings. While this action is in progress, the lizard will rush and lick both of them up with its sticky tongue.

Control

Some preventive measures are given here

(i) The beekeeper can do little to prevent the loss of foragers to the highly mobile arboreal reptiles, usually well hidden in the trees except to destroy as many of them as he can when he encounters them.

(ii) Placing the hive on stand 60 cm high from the ground or arranging hanging hives in the apiary, is relatively safe from the reptiles attacking.

(iii) Coating the legs of the stands with spent engine oil or grease can prevent the reptiles from climbing up to the hive entrance.

(iv) A well-kept bee yard, frequently mowed, without dense bushes, shrubs and tall grasses, that offer safe hiding for the predators, has less chances of suffering losses from reptiles.

(v) No salable chemical control of reptiles is available for use in an apiary.

3. Birds

Birds, which have been listed as attacking honey bees in India includes, Merops apiaster (bee-eater), Merops orientals, Dicrurus macrocercus (king crow), Cypselus spp (swifts), Lanius spp (shrikes) Picus spp(peckers), lndicatoridae sp. (honey guide), etc. They visit apiaries occasionally on cloudy days, and prey upon bees. The heavy traffic of bees flying in and out of the hives of commercial apiaries ovide an exceptional opportunity for insectivorous birds. Therefore, a large number of birds are attracted by this situation.

Damages

The level of damage caused by the apivorous birds varies considerably. An attack by a single bird or by a few together rarely constitutes a serious problem. When a relatively large flock descends upon a few colonies or an apiary, a substantial decline in the worker population may be observed. The degree of damage to the commercial apiaries by predatory birds depend upon the number of predators and intensity of the attack. The mere presence of a few predators in apiaries engaged in queen-rearing can inflict serious losses. The bee eaters sit on tree or telegraph wires near an apiary and pick the bees on the wings and do much harm. Sometimes as many as 40 bees have been found in the stomach of a bird.

Control

Some of the precautionary measures are described here.

(i) While beekeepers regard insectivorous birds as pests, sometimes serious, other branches of agriculture generally do not consider them as their enemies. In fact, birds that prey on insects are mostly considered to be beneficial for farming. They help in the control of insect pests. For this reason, therefore, no attempt is made to solve the apiary's bird problems by mass killing of the bird predators.

(ii) Where heavy predating birds on apiary bees tends to occur at fixed period, may be period of migration of birds, the most practical means of solving the problem is to avoid the birds, by relocating the apiary temporarily, until the birds migration period is over.

(iii) Sometimes scaring the predating birds away from apiaries by shooting at them with sound producing riffle is suggested.

4. Mammals

Many group of mammals can be considered as enemies of the honeybees. They, generally prey on colonies for honey and brood eating. Sometimes the attacks are purely accidental or the result of animal curiosity. Some important mammals causing damage to the bee colonies, specially to apiaries which are placed in or near forests and are not properly protected are monkeys, bear, badgers and man.

a. Monkey

In several parts of the country, monkeys have been found opening the hives and consuming honey and brood. As a result, frames are destroyed and colonies abscond. Scaring the monkey away is the only recommended control measure for apiary.

b. Bears

Bears are undoubtedly the most important mammalian bee pest. The best known bear pest are the black bear, Euarctos americanus.

Damages

Bears cause much damage to bee hives as they seek honey and brood. They repeatedly visit an apiary, destroying one or more hives with each visit. They tip hives over and tear them apart to get to brood and honey frames, which they carry a short distance away before feeding.

Control

Some important suggestion to prevent the bear's entry into the apiary are mentioned here.

(a) The best protection against damage is a sturdy electric fence around the apiary. Fences must be electric charged, and should be built before bear damage begins.

(b) Another effective control measures is to place bee hives on sturdy bear proof platforms elevated above bear height.

(c) Moving bee hives away once an apiary has been visited by a bear.

(d) Shoot and trap the bears but it has only limited success and must be done by government officials.

c. Badgers

Badgers are omnivorous, which means they eat almost everything, including bees. The honey badgers, Mellivora capensis, can easily tear a man made hive apart. It is found in western India and many other parts of the world.

Damages

The badgers, mostly destroy the hives, lying near the ground surface. They rarely cause any trouble to bee colonies. They rarely cause any trouble to bee colonies. They prefer to digging out wasps even when the badger's den is in the apiary. When it begins to damage the colony it takes only a few seconds to damage the bee colony completely. It is known as one of the most destructive enemies of honey bee colonies.

Control

The important suggestions to prevent the damage caused by badgers are given here.

(a) Fence the apiaries with great care, burying the fence at least 61 cm below the ground to prevent the badgers digging beneath it.

(b) Place the hive high in the air beyond the approach of the predator.

(c) Remove the badgers from the area of the apiary.

d. Man

The worst of all the enemies of the honey bees is man. In his attempt to improve his living conditions, man has caused and is still causing, great damage to existence of bees in nature. Man is clearing forest lands, clearing all bushes by burning, killing of bees by honey hunters, killing of bees by burning bushes, deliberately burning of bees so that man can live peacefully and spraying insecticides on bee pasturages are some of the unwanted activities of the man.

IV. Conclusion

Regular inspection of the bee colony and adopting preventive measures to ward of the pests is necessary for the successful maintenance of the apiary. Use of insecticides must be done judiciously as the honey bees also can get affected by the same. What is more important is a clear understanding of the pest problem for the bees. Once a systematic understanding is achieved each beekeeper finds his own way to control the pests.