International Journal of Advances in Biology (IJAB) Vol 1. No .

2, November 2014

USE AND IMPACT OF INSECTICIDES IN

MEALYBUG CONTROL.
Mamoon-ur-Rasheed*, Bushra, S. 1, M. Tariq2,

*Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Gomal University, Dera Ismail

Khan 29220, Pakistan.
1
Ph.D Scholar, Department of Entomology, Pir Mehr Ali Shah, Arid Agriculture
University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Entomology, Pir Mehr Ali Shah, Arid Agriculture
University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Abstract

Mealy bugs infests anumber of crop plants and results a serious economic loss. Although, there are a
number of insecticides to overcome the yeild losses in crop plants. But, the presence of waxy layer around
its body that make them so difficult to control by means of insecticides. The waxy coating, high
reproduction rate, protection by ants and variety of hosts are some of the factors which contribute to the
pest status of this pest insect. Most of farmers mainly rely on synthetic chemicals for the management of
cotton mealy bug but due to rising environmental and economic concerns there is a dire need to develop
eco and environmental friendly measures to combat this menace. The use of synthetic insecticides is
extremely toxic to natural enemies of mealy bugs. Plant derivatives can be used as an alternative approach
to synthetic chemicals which are cost effective, easily available and safe to environment and biocontrol
agents. Similarly, olfactory studies show that odors emitted from plant and mealy bug itself can also be
used in pest management strategies.

Keywords: economic loss, yeild losses, management, biocontrol agents, pest.

1.INTRODUCTION

Mealybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) are small, soft-bodied, plant sucking insects which
embrace the second largest family of scale insects (Pseudococcidae) and comprises
approximately 2000 species belonging to 300 genera. Their common name is due to the waxy
material which covers the bodies of adult females [1,2].

Mealybugs are sexually dimorphic, the female is wingless and does not experience complete
metamorphosis, i.e. do not have pupal stage on the other hand males are winged and have
complete metamorphosis. Males have two long pairs of white waxy tails. They have non
functional mouth parts and live for only 2-4 days [3]. Male passes through four developmental
stages, i.e. egg, larva, pupa and adult while female passes through three developmental stages of
egg, larva and adult. The fully grown adult female is covered with white waxy powder and has
yellowish white color with some black spots on the dorsal side of the body.

1
 International Journal of Advances in Biology (IJAB) Vol 1. No .2, November 2014

Mealybugs of genus Phenacoccus attack a wide variety of crops, fruits, vegetables, ornamentals
and weeds but cotton is the prime target. In the initial stage it breeds on all types of weeds round
the year and then migrates to cotton crop. Mealybugs have been reported to appear and survive on
poorly grown cotton crop [4]. The insect damage at initial stage appears in small pockets and then
spreads to whole field.

The co-evolutionary relationship among mealy bug hosts and its parasitoids appear to be strong
and successful classical biological control strategy against mealybugs [5]. Two potential
parasitoids, the encyrtids Gyranusoidea tebygi and Anagyrus mangicola are reported to control R.
invadens. The experiments revealed that G. tebygi can control R. invadens density even more as
comared to A. mangicola [6].

All over the world scientists are working for development and establishment of plant based
pesticide, usually called as phytopesticide, botanical pesticide, biopesticide or natural pesticides
[7,8]. Exposure of mealy bug eggs to sun, removal of alternative host plants and conservation of
natural enemies by using garlic oil or neem seed extract around the trunk of trees and application
of alkathane bands can eradicate mango mealybug population [9]. Biological activities of neem
based insecticides are known for more than 400 pest insects, which has minimal toxicity to non
target organisms such as parasitoids, predators and pollinators [10,11].

Although, there are a number of chemical control strategies to overcome the yeild losses in crop
plants due to mealy bug attack (Table 1).The use of synthetic insecticides is extremely toxic to
natural enemies of mealy bugs (Table 2). The natural enemies include predators such as
Chrysoperla carnea, Hippodemia convergens, Coccinella septempunctata, Brumus saturalus and
Cryptolaemus montrouzieri. Azadirachtin and numerous other compounds derived primarily from
Azadirachta indica A. Juss have insecticidal, antifeedant, and toxicological properties for pest
insects control [12-15]. These biological activities of neem based insecticides are known for more
than 400 pest insects [16]. Plant derivatives can be used as an alternative approach to synthetic
chemicals which are cost effective, easily available and safe to environment and bio control
agents. In this paper, we have highlighted the use of insecticides to control mealy bugs and its
side effects to bio-control agents. Similarly, olfactory studies show that odors emitted from plant
and mealy bug itself can also be used in pest management strategies.

2.USE OF INSECTICIDES

2.1 Control of Phenacoccus solenopsis:

The efficacy of different synthetic insecticides and neem oil against cotton mealybug,
Phenacoccus solenopsis was tested under laboratory and field conditions in cotton crop.
Insecticides, Commando (97% DF), Confidor (20% SL), Lannate (40% SP), Actara (25 WG)
were applied at field recommended doses. Neem oil was applied @ 1.5 and 2.0% concentration.
In laboratory, Commando resulted 95.2% mortality after 72 hours of exposure. But Commando
was persistant as compared rest of insecticides tested. In field, Commando caused 80.6%
mortality of the mealybug that was significantly higher than Confidor (73.29%), Lannate
(70.93%), Actara (74.36%) and neem oil @ 1.5% (43.48%) and 2.0% (52.97%) concentration.
Results revealed that neem oil was less toxic than the rest of the synthetic insecticides at both
concentrations but it significantly reduced the population of mealy bug and remained effective

2
 International Journal of Advances in Biology (IJAB) Vol 1. No .2, November 2014

Table 1: Showing the effectiveness of different insecticides on different mealy bug species.

S.N INSECTICIDE RESULT REFERENCES

APPLIED
1 Confidor, Lannate, Most effective: [17]
Actara, neem oil Neem oil
2 Mustang (zetacyper 2% Least effective: [18]
+ ethion 36% + 98.8 ml Mustang
H2SO4 + 1186 g soda
ash), Curacron
(profenofos)2, Supracide
(methidathion), Lorsban
(chlorpyrifos), Lannate
(methomyl)
3 Spirotetramate (12%) + Most effective: [19]
imidacloprid (36 %), Profenophos
spirotetramate 150 OD,
imidacloprid 200 SL,
thiodicarb 75 WP and
profenophos
4 NSKE, Neem oil + Most effective: [23]
Nirma powder, Nirma Acephate
powder, Verticillium
lecanii, Beauveria
bassiana, Metarhizium
anisopliae,
Photorhabdus
luminescens, Fish oil
rosin soap, Mealy Quit,
Acephate, Chlorpyriphos
5 Profenophos, Carbaryl, Most effective: [20]
triazophos Profenophos
6 Profenophos, triazophos, Most effective: [21]
carbaryl Triazophos
7 Buprofezin, carbaryl, Most effective: [22]
chloropyriphos Buprofezin

for a long period of time [17].

Different Field experiments were conducted against cotton mealybug (Phenacoccus solani Ferris)
during Kharif 2006 and 2007 in Pakistan to evaluate the efficacy of four insecticides viz. Mustang
380 EC @ 2964 and 1976 ml (zetacyper 2% + ethion 36% + 98.8 ml H2SO4 + 1186 g soda ash),
Curacron 50 EC (profenofos) @ 1976 ml, Supracide 40 EC (methidathion) @ 1235 ml, Lorsban
3
 International Journal of Advances in Biology (IJAB) Vol 1. No .2, November 2014

40 EC (chlorpyrifos) @ 2470 ml and Lannate 40 SP (methomyl) @ 741 g per hectare. All the
tested insecticides registered significant control of the pest up to 7 days after treatment during
both years. Supracide, Curacron, Lorsban and Lannate were proved to be economical and
effective up to 3, 5 and 7 days after treatment (DAT) with mortality range of 85.74 to 95.69
percent and 83.17 to 93.72 percent during 2007 and 2006, respectively. Mustang @ 2964 ml and
1976 ml per hectare was the least effective treatment and registered 72.11 to 84.38 percent
population reduction over control for 3, 5 and 7 days after treatment [18].

The effectiveness of combination of spirotetramate (12%) + imidacloprid (36 %) 480 SC,

spirotetramate 150 OD, imidacloprid 200 SL, thiodicarb 75 WP and profenophos 50 EC against
the mealybug, P. solenopsis was investigated on Bt cotton during 2007 and 2008. The results
indicated that application of Spirotetramate (12%) + imidacloprid (36 %) 480 SC @ 625 ml/ ha
proved to be the most effective combination and significantly reduced the mealybug infestation as
compared to other treatments. The lowest population reduction was observed in spirotetramate
150 OD alone treatment. Profenophos registered highest reduction of 86.5, 92.2 and 96.5%
respectively in mealybug population after 3, 7 and 10 days of spray [19].

It was reported that profenophos to be the most effective against P. solenopsis under field
conditions and caused 90.66% population reduction. Carbaryl (89.56) and triazophos (88.66%)
also provided good control of the pest [20].

In an experiment, nine of insecticides were evaluated against P. solenopsis in laboratory and field
conditions during 2006-07 in India. Among them profenophos (0.05%), triazophos (0.04% and
carbaryl (0.2%) resulted into significant reduction in mealybug population both under laboratory
and field conditions. Maximum (2759 kg/ha) seed cotton yield was obtained from profenophos
treatment followed by triazophos (2679 kg/ha) and carbaryl (2644 kg/ha). Triazophos proved
profitable with the maximum cost benefit ratio (1: 21: 70) [21].

Field experiments during 2007-09 were conducted on farmer fields in India to evaluate the
efficacy of buprofezin, carbaryl and chloropyriphos against mealybug in cotton. The efficacy of
buprofezin was found dose dependant. Buprofezin was found to be the most effective insecticide
for the control of mealybug on cotton with more than 95 per cent reduction in pest population
over control after 3 days after spray followed by carbary and chloropyriphos. Carbaryl and
chloropyriphos were found less effective than buprofezin but exhibited statistically significant
efficacy as compared with control. Buprofezin exhibited a significant lethal effect against the
early and late instar nymphs of P. solenopsis under laboratory conditions. It was found more toxic
to early instars than late instar nymphs. Highest dose of buprofezin was most effective against
both early and late instar nymphs of cotton mealybug [22].

2.2 Control of P. solenopsis and Paracoccus marginatus

Laboratory experiments were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of botanicals NSKE 5%, Neem
oil (2.5 l /ha) + Nirma powder (0.1%), Nirma powder 0.1 %, Verticillium lecanii 5gm/lit,
Beauveria bassiana 5gm/lit, Metarhizium anisopliae 5gm/lit), Bacterial symbiont of
entomopathogenic nematode (Photorhabdus luminescens) 20ml/lit, Fish oil rosin soap 2ml / lit.,
Mealy Quit (New botanical formulation from CICR, Nagpur) 100ml/lit and synthetic insecticides
Acephate 700g a.i. /ha, Chlorpyriphos 500g a.i./ha for the management of P. solenopsis and
Paracoccus marginatus on cotton leaves. Acephate registered the highest mortality of 53.3% and
4
 International Journal of Advances in Biology (IJAB) Vol 1. No .2, November 2014

64.44% of P. solenopsis nymphs and adults respectively 48 hours after treatment. Similar
mortality trend was obtained for all the tested biopesticides. Chloropyriphos and Mealy Quitwere
found equally toxic and caused 48.9% mortality at 48 hours after treatment. Similarly acephate
caused maximum mortality 55.56% after 48 hours when tested against P. marginatus.
Chloropyriphos, Mealy Quit and fish oil rosin soap were found equally effective causing 51.1-
52.2% mortality at 48 hours after treatment [23].

3.IMPACT OF INSECTICIDES ON MEALY BUG BIO-CONTROL

AGENTS
3.1 Impact on Chrysoperla carnea:
The impact of fipronil was evaluated on all developmental stages of C. carnea using different
modes of exposure under laboratory conditions. Fipronil had no significant effect on the
hatchability of C. carnea eggs at all the tested concentrations. However, caused a significant
reduction (40%) in the1st instar larvae of the predator compared with control at the highest (30 mg
a.i./l) tested concentration. Topical treatment of pupae on the silken cocoon caused no significant
effect on the adult emergence and without any significant effect on the fecundity and fertility of
surviving females of the predator. In contrast, the compound caused a significant mortality of C.
carnea adults even at rates below the maximum field recommended rate by both ingestion and
topical treatment methods [24].
Table 2: Showing the side effect of insecticides on mealy bug bio-control agents

S.N Toxic insecticides Affected bio-control References

agents
1 Fipronil Chrysoperla carnea [24]
2 Diafenthiuron, buprofezin, Chrysoperla carnea [25]
imidacloprid, carbosulfan,
methamidophos, acetamiprid,
thiamethoxam
3 imidacloprid, quinalphos, Trichogramma chilonis, [29]
endosalfon. Chrysoperla carnea
4 imidacloprid, pymetrozine Chrysoperla carnea [26]
5 acetamiprid, dinotefuran, Cryptolaemus [30]
clothianidion. montrouzieri, Leptomastix
dactylopii
6 imidacloprid, deltamethrin, Coccinella [31]
heptenophos, lamda- septempunctata
cyhalothrin.
7 Trichlorfon Chrysoperla carnea [27]
8 Phosmet, spinosad Cryptolaemus [32]
montrouzieri, Neoseiulus
californicus, Aphidius
colemani
9 Imidacloprid, diafenthiuron Chrysoperla carnea [28]
5
 International Journal of Advances in Biology (IJAB) Vol 1. No .2, November 2014

Laboratory studies were conducted to find out the toxicity of eight insecticides viz.
Diafenthiuron, buprofezin, thiodicarb, imidacloprid, carbosulfan, methamidophos, acetamiprid
and thiamethoxam through leaf dip bio assay trials at low, recommended and high level of
concentrations against 1st instar larvae of C. carnea in Pakistan. Low and recommended
concentrations of diafenthiuron and buprofezin were classified as harmless while high
concentrations of both insecticides were found slightly harmful to C. carnea larvae after 24 hours
of exposure period. Thiodicarb was found harmless to C. carnea larvae at lower concentration but
slightly toxic at recommended and higher concentrations. Acetamiprid and thiamethoxam were
found moderately toxic at lower concentration, however, toxic at recommended and higher
concentrations. All the tested insecticides were found extremely toxic to C. carnea larvae with >
90% mortality after 48 hours except buprofezin and thiodicarb. Pupal formation was recorded
lowest (0.00 %) in the acetamiprid and highest (71.7 %) in the buprofezin treated larvae. All the
insecticides had no effect on the adult emergence rates at lower concentrations. The adult
emergence of survived larvae was highest (65.00%) for buprofezin and lowest (2.00%) for
methamedophos [25].

The toxicity of imidacloprid, propargite and pymetrozine was assessed to the two day old larvae
of green lacewing, C. carnea in the laboratory using residual glass plate bioassays. All the three
tested insecticides caused adverse effects on the survival of larvae. Imidacloprid was classified as
harmless and caused no significant effect considering the total effect (E = 27.44%) whereas,
propargite (E = 49.78%) and pymetrozine (E = 66.9%) were slightly harmful. Life table analysis
indicated that imidacloprid and propargite had no significant effects on the intrinsic rate of natural
increase (rm), however, pymetrazine recorded a significant reduction (34%) in intrinsic value.
Propargite was classified non-toxic to C. carnea larvae. The life table analysis exhibited more
adverse effects of pymtrozine following the IOBC guidelines [26].

The effectiveness of five pesticides was tested at maximum field recommended concentrations on
C. carnea under laboratory conditions. The results revealed that abamectin was slightly harmful
to C. carnea larvae and phosmet and trichlorfon were slightly and moderately harmful to C.
carnea adults according to IOBC guidelines when exposed to fresh pesticide residues on glass
plates. All the tested pesticides were found harmless after spraying of eggs and pupae. Abamectin
and trichlorfon were classified as less persistent pesticides and caused between 56.3 and 75%
mortality up to 30 days after treatment [27].

The toxicity of imidacloprid and diafenthiuron to eggs, larvae and adults of C. carnea was
investigated under laboratory conditions. The recommended dose of imidacloprid at 0.28 ml/l
recorded 15.38% egg mortality, 26.67 and 33.33 % larval mortality by ingestion and contact
methods and 50.00 % adult mortality. The diafenthiuron caused 15.38 % egg mortality, 23.33 %
larval mortality and adult mortality of 26.67 %. According to guidelines given by IOBC/WPRS
working group on pesticides and non-target invertebrates both chemicals were classified as
harmless at the recommended doses [28].

3.2 Impact on Trichogramma chilonis and predator C. carnea

The relative toxicity of biopesticides like Pseudomonas fluorescens strain pf1 and neem oil was
compared with imidacloprid, quinalphos and endosalfon against an egg parasitoid, Trichogramma
chilonis and predator C. carnea under laboratory conditions. Biopesticides were found safer to
6
 International Journal of Advances in Biology (IJAB) Vol 1. No .2, November 2014

both natural enemies and exhibited no harmful effects on the behaviour and development of
natural enemies. The hatchability of C. carnea eggs was found maximum (93.00 %) in P.
Fluorescens and minimum (43.50%) in imidacloprid treatment. Biopesticide P. Fluorescens was
found harmless and recorded highest parasitism (≈ 73%) and egg development (≈ 72%) of egg
parasitoid T. Chilonis. It also resulted into highest development (≈ 75%) of C. carnea eggs. The
parasitoid emergence was recorded 58.9%, parasitizatism, 59.3% and the egg hatchability was
63.1% in neem oil treatment. All the insecticides were found toxic to both natural enemies [29].

3.3 Impact on Cryptolaemus montrouzieri and Leptomastix dactylopii

The effectiveness of synthetic insecticides buprofezin, pyroproxyfen, flonicamid, acetamiprid,

dinotefuran and clothianidion on mealybug destroyer, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri and parasitoid
Leptomastix dactylopii natural enemies of citrus mealybug Planococcus citri was evaluated under
laboratory conditions. Dinotefuran was found extremely toxic at label rate to the adult parasitoid
producing 100% mortality within 24 hours, whereas, buprofezin, pyriproxyfen and flonicamid
were found harmless. Insecticides dinotefuran, acetamiprid and clothianidin were harmful to
parasitoid at 4x the recommended label rate causing 100% mortality 72 hours after application. In
contrast buprofezin and flonicamid both were totally harmless to L. Dactylopii with 100 % adult
survival after 72 hours. Pyriproxyfen and flonicamid, both at label and at 4 x the recommended
label rate did not affect the parasitisation rate or adult emergence of L. Dactylopii. Acetamiprid,
dinotefuron and clothianidin were extremely toxic to C. montrouzieri adults causing 100 %
mortality after 48 hours, whereas, buprofezin, pyriproxyfen and flonicamid exhibited negligible
(10-20 %) mortality [30].

3.4 Impact on Coccinella septempunctata

Laboratory studies were conducted to find out the toxicity of five insecticides (Pyriproxyfen,
imidacloprid, deltamethrin, heptenophos, lamda-cyhalothrin and Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner
subsp. tenebrionis) through surface contact method to adults of seven-spotted lady bird beetle
Coccinella septempunctata. Based on the classification given by IOBC, preparations of
pyriproxyfen and B. thuringiensis were classified as harmless to adult C. septempunctata,
however, the other two preparations deltamethrin+heptenophos and lamda-cyhalothrin were
classified as moderately harmful. According to LT50 values, lambda-cyhalothrin was declared as
moderately harmful whereas, the combination of deltamethrin+heptenophos was found extremely
toxic to adult C. septempunctata [31].

3.5 Impact on Cryptolaemus montrouzieri, Neoseiulus californicus and Aphidius

colemani:

The efficacy of four insecticides was investigated against Mediterranean fruit fly and measured
their side effects on three natural enemies, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri, Neoseiulus californicus
and Aphidius colemani under laboratory conditions. All the tested insecticides causes
significantly higher mortality of C. montrouzieri (≈ 60%) compared with control. The toxic
effects of karate king were faster compared with other treatments when ten day old C.
montrouzieri adults were exposed to; fresh residues, 3-day old residues and 6-day old residues.
However none of the insecticide caused any significant effect on the fecundity and fertility of the
surviving females in any case [32].

7
 International Journal of Advances in Biology (IJAB) Vol 1. No .2, November 2014

4.OLFACTORY RESPONSES OF MEALY BUGS AND

BIOCONTROL AGENTS USING PLANT VOLATILES

4.1 Use of Cassava plant:

The response of predatory ladybeetle, Exochomus flaviventris towards cassava mealybug,

Phenacoccus manihoti was tested using Y-tube olfactometer. The response of E. flaviventris to
the odor of cassava plant, unparasitized mealybugs, plant–mealybug complex with or without
feeding prey (parasitized or not), and plant–mealybug complex with or without conspecific
coccinellids was investigated. Dual-choice tests revealed that mealy bug infested plants were
preferred to P. manihoti alone and mealybug-damaged plants. Similarly, mealy bug damaged
plants are found to be the major source of volatiles that attract E. flaviventris to its prey. Female
E. flaviventris showed a preference for sources of odor from an infested plant with conspecific
predator females (alone or with conspecific males) as compared to uninfested plants. Female E.
flaviventris preferred infested plants with unparasitized P. manihoti over the plant infested with
parasitized P. manihoti. The results revealed that E. flaviventris females use herbivore-induced
plant volatiles to detect its prey [33].

In an experiment, the host finding capability and effectiveness of parasitoid wasp, Epidinocarsis
lopezi was tested towards cassava mealybug, Phenacoccus manihoti in cassava field. Using a
four-armed olfactometer, the effect of host-plant odors to female E. lopezi was determined. In this
experiment, 50 choices were made between the odour and a blank, or between two odors in
choice test experiments. Female E. lopezi were attracted by mealybug-infested cassava leaves, but
not by the odor of cassava mealybugs alone or by uninfested plants. These results revealed that P.
manihoti infested plants are attractive towards E. lopezi. It was concluded that E. lopezi uses the
odour which is emitted from infested cassava plants to find its host in field [34].

4.1 Use of Mango plant:

The host stage selection and sex allocation behaviors of Anagyrus mangicola was tested
towards mango mealybug, Rastrococcus invadens. For this purpose, choice and no-choice tests
were performed under controlled conditions. All instars of R. invadens were parasitized
significantly as compared to first instar. However they preferred host feeding. Population of
female wasps emerging from any size of host was significantly higher as compared to males.
Similar results were found when Gyranusoidea tebygi was tested to control R. invadens. The
results revealed that both G. tebygi and A. mangicola parasitoids can be used to control
populations of R. invadens successfully [35].

The efficacy of parasitoid Gyranusoidea tebygi was tested against mango mealybug,
Rastrococcus invadens, in mango trees using paired sleeve cages. Sleeve cages left open and
allowed for G. tebygi attack. It was found that G. tebygi reduced mealybug levels 2.7-fold within
1.5 host generations as compared to the closed-sleeve cages. In open-sleeve treatment a
parasitism index was found up to 34.4%. The results revealed that the lower level of the
mealybug population on uncaged leaves as compared to the one on leaves protected by open
cages is attributed to higher mortality. This was due to parasitism and abiotic factors such as rain
and wind [36].

8
 International Journal of Advances in Biology (IJAB) Vol 1. No .2, November 2014

5.OLFACTORY RESPONSES OF LADY BEETLES TOWARDS

MEALY BUGS ODORS
The olfactory response of mealybug ladybird, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri was tested at varied
levels of its starvation in controlled conditions. Results indicated that C. montrouzieri oriented
more significantly to its prey odor when it was starved for certain period of time as compared to
without starvation. Both larvae and adult of C. montrouzieri showed maximum response towards
its prey at 4, 8, 12, 12 and 24 hours of starvation. Continued starvation for more than certain ideal
period can affect predator olfactory response negatively. But C. montrouzieri responded
positively for longer period of its starvation. It is concluded that C. montrouzieri can search its
prey by its odor and it can maintain its population in mango orchards for a long without food
[37].
Experiments were conducted to study the biology and predation of mealybug
ladybird, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri on mealybugs, Planococcus citri and Dactylopius
tomentosus under controlled conditions (29.4-32.1°C, 65-71% RH). C. montrouzieri completed
its life cycle on both species, but preferred P. citri as compared to D. tomentosus. The egg and
larval periods were 4.00 and 12.42 days with P. citri, and 4.23 and 17.67 days with D.
tomentosus. The male to female ratio was 1:1.75 and 1:1.49, respectively. Feeding preference
by C. montrouzieri on P. citri was twice that with D. tomentosus (150.83 and 72 mg,
respectively). The results revealed that C. montrouzieri is an efficient biological control agent for
several mealy bug species [38].

CONCLUSION
Biological control of mealybug on cotton crop can yield promising results. Several predators
such as Chrysoperla carnea, Hippodemia convergens, Coccinella septempunctata, Brumus
saturalus and Cryptolaemus montrouzieri can be used for the effective management of cotton
mealybug on cotton crop. Several genera of coccinalids feed voraciously on all larval instars of
cotton mealybug. An Australian lady bird beetle Cryptolaemus montrouzieri commonly known as
mealybug destroyer is considered an important predator of mealybug. It is a voracious feeder of
cotton mealybug in both the larval and adult stages. In larval stage it resembles with its prey, the
mealybug, although they are almost twice as large as the adult female mealybug. They are most
effective when mealy bug populations are high. Similarly, olfactory studies show that odors
emitted from plant and mealy bug itself can also be used in pest management strategies. These
odors show negligible activity to environment and attract the natural enemies.

REFERENCES
[1] D. R. Miller, and D. J. Williams, “A new species of mealybug in the genus Pseudococcus
(Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) of quarantine importance. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of
Washington,” vol. 99, pp. 305-311, 1997.
[2] D. A. Downie, and P. J. Gullan, “Phylogenetic analysis of mealybugs (Hemiptera : Coccoidea :
Pseudococcidae) based on DNA sequences from three nuclear genes, and a review of the higher
classification,” Systematic Entomology, vol. 29, pp. 238-259, 2004.
[3] Anonymous, “Annual report of the Central Cotton Research Institute, Multan. In: Pakistan Central
Cotton Committee, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Islamabad, Pakistan. pp. 75-76,
2008.
[4] T. F. Leigh, and G. A. Mathews, “Lygus (Hemiptera: Miridae) and Other Hemiptera. Insects pests on
cotton (ed. by G. A. Mathews and J. P. Tunstall),” CAB International, Oxfordshire, U.K, 1994.

9
 International Journal of Advances in Biology (IJAB) Vol 1. No .2, November 2014

[5] J. G. Charles, “Using parasitoids to infer a native range for the obscure mealybug, Pseudococcus
viburni, in South America,” BioControl, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 155-161, 2011.
[6] H. C. J. Godfray, and J. K. Waage, “Predictive modelling in biological control: the mango mealy bug
(Rastrococcus invadens) and its parasitoids,” Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 434-453,
1991.
[7] H. Yan-Zhang, Y. Chang-Ju, X. Dong, R. O. Akinkurolere, and Y. Ying-Juan, “Contact and
repellency activities of ethanol extracts from twenty medicinal plants against Rhizopertha dominica
(Fab.) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae),” Acta Entomologica Sinica, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 118-123, 2007.
[8] B. S. Siddiqui, S. T. Ali, R. M. Tariq, T. Gulzar, M. Rasheed and R. Mehmood, “GC-based analysis
of insecticidal constituents of the flower of Azadirachta indica A. Juss,” Natural Product Research,
vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 271-283, 2009.
[9] P. L. Tandon, and A. Verghese, “World list of insect, mite and other pests of mango,” Technical
Document No.5, IIHR, Banglore, 22p, 1985.
[10] D. T. Lowery, and M. B. Isman, “Toxicity of neem to natural enemies of aphids,” Phytoparasitica,
vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 297-306, 1995.
[11] K. Naumann, and M. B. Isman, “Toxicity of neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) seed extracts to larval
honeybees and estimation of dangers from field application,” American Bee Journal, vol. 136, pp.
518-20, 1996.
[12] O. Koul, “Biological activity of volatile Di-n-propyl disulfide from seeds of neem, Azadirachta indica
(Meliaceae), to two species of stored grain pests, Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and Tribolium castaneum
(Herbst),” Journal of Economic Entomology, vol. 97, pp. 1142-1147, 2004.
[13] S. Senthil-Nathan, M. Y. Choi, C. H. Paik, H. Y. Seo, and K. Kalaivani, “Toxicity and physiological
effects of neem pesticides applied to rice on the Nilaparvata lugens Stal, the brown planthopper,”
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, vol. 72, pp. 1707-1713, 2009.
[14] S. E. Atawodi, and J. C. Atawodi, “Azadirachta indica (neem): a plant of multiple biological and
pharmacological activities,” Phytochemistry Reviews, vol. 8, pp. 601-620, 2009.
[15] G. Esparza-Diaz, J. Lopez-Collado, J. A. Villanueva-Jimenez, F. Osorio-Acosta, G. Otero-Colina and
E. Camacho-Diaz, “Azadirachtin concentration, insecticide efficacy and phytotoxicity of four neem
Azadirachta indica a. juss. Extracts,” Agrociencia, vol. 44, pp. 821-833, 2010.
[16] H. Schmutterer, and R. P. Singh RP, “List of insect pests susceptible to neem products,” The neem
tree: Azadirachta indica A. Juss. and other Meliaceae plants (ed. by H. Schmutterer), pp. 696. VCH,
Verlag, Weinheim, Germany, 1995.
[17] M. Mamoon-ur-Rashid, M. K. Khattak, K. Abdullah and S. Hussain, “Toxic and residual activities of
selected insecticides and neem oil against cotton mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley
(Sternorrhyncha: Pseudococcidae) under laboratory and field conditions,” Pakistan Entomologist, vol.
33, no. 2, pp. 151-155, 2011.
[18] J. H. Aheer, Z. Shah, and M. Saeed, “Seasonal history and biology of cotton mealybug, Phenacoccus
solenopsis Tinsley,” Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 47, pp. 423-431, 2009.
[19] A. K. Dhawan, S. Kamaldeep, and S. Ravinder S, “Evaluation of different chemicals for the
management of mealy bug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley on Bt cotton,” Journal of Cotton
Research and Development, vol. 23, pp. 289-294, 2009.
[20] R. C. Jhala, M. G. Patel, and T. M. Bharpoda, “Evaluation of insecticides for the management of
mealy bug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley in cotton. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences,
vol. 23, pp. 101-102, 2010.
[21] N. D. Nikam, B. H. Patel, and D. M. Korat, “Biology of invasive mealy bug, Phenacoccus solenopsis
Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on cotton,” Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol.
23, pp. 649-651, 2010.
[22] M. G. Patel, R. C. Jhala, N. M. Vaghela, and N. R. Chauhan, “Bio-efficacy of buprofezin against
mealy bug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) an invasive pest of cotton,”
Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 23, pp. 14-18, 2010.
[23] J. G. Banu, T. Surulivelu, M. Amutha, and N. Gopalakrishnan, “Laboratory evaluation of insecticides
and biopesticides against Phenococcus solenopsis and Paracoccus marginatus infesting,” Journal of
Biopesticides, vol. 3, pp. 343-346, 2010.

10
 International Journal of Advances in Biology (IJAB) Vol 1. No .2, November 2014

[24] P. Medina, F. Budia, P. Del Estal, and E. Viñuela, “Influence of Azadirachtin, a botanical insecticide,
on Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) reproduction: toxicity and ultrastructural approach,” Journal of
Economic Entomology, vol. 97, pp. 43-50, 2004.
[25] A. Nasreen, M. Ashfaq, G. Mustafa, and R. R. Khan, “Mortality rates of five commercial insecticides
on Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Chrysopidae: Neuroptera),” Pak J Agric Science, vol. 44, pp. 266-
271, 2007.
[26] M. Rezaei, K. Talebi, V. H. Naveh, and A. Kavousi, “Impacts of the pesticides imidacloprid,
propargite, and pymetrozine on Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae): IOBC
and life table assays,” BioControl, vol. 52, pp. 385-398, 2007.
[27] F. Giolo, P. Medina, A. Grützmacher, and E. Viñuela, “Effects of pesticides commonly used in peach
orchards in Brazil on predatory lacewing Chrysoperla carnea under laboratory conditions,”
BioControl, vol. 54, pp. 625-635, 2009.
[28] P. Gnanadhas, J. Stanley, M. Thiagarajan, C. Subramanian, and K. Sasthakutty, “Toxicity of
imidacloprid and diafenthiuron to Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) in the
laboratory conditions,” Journal of Plant Protection Research, vol. 49, pp. 290-296, 2009.
[29] P. I. Gandhi, K. Gunasekaran, S. Poonguzhali, R. Anandham, G. H. Kim, K. Y. Chung, and T. Sa,
“Laboratory evaluation of relative toxicities of some insecticides against Trichogramma chilonis
(Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) and Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),” Journal of
Asia-Pacific Entomology, vol. 8, pp. 381-386, 2005.
[30] R. A. Cloyd, and A. Dickinson, “Effect of insecticides on mealybug destroyer (Coleoptera:
Coccinellidae) and parasitoid Leptomastix dactylopii (Hymenoptera : Encyrtidae), natural enemies of
citrus mealybug (Homoptera : Pseudococcidae),” Journal of Economic Entomology, vol. 99, pp.
1596-1604, 2006.
[31] A. Bozsik, “Susceptibility of adult Coccinelia septempunctata (Coleoptera : Coccinellidae) to
insecticides with different modes of action,” Pest Management Science, vol. 62, pp. 651-654, 2006.
[32] A. Urbaneja, Chueca P, Monton H, Pascual-Ruiz S, Dembilio O, Vanaclocha P, Abad-Moyano R,
Pina T and Castanera P. 2009. Chemical alternatives to malathion for controlling Ceratitis capitata
(Diptera: Tephritidae), and their side effects on natural enemies in Spanish citrus orchards. J Econ
Entomol. 102: 144-151.
[33] B. L. Rü, and J. P. M. Makosso, “Prey Habitat Location by the Cassava Mealybug Predator
Exochomus flaviventris: Olfactory Responses to Odor of Plant, Mealybug, Plant–Mealybug Complex,
and Plant–Mealybug–Natural Enemy Complex,” Journal of Insect Behavior, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 557-
572, 2001.
[34] H. Nadel, and J. J. M. van Alphen, “The role of host- and host-plant odours in the attraction of a
parasitoid, Epidinocarsis lopezi, to the habitat of its host, the cassava mealybug, Phenacoccus
manihoti. Entomologia Experimentalis Et Applicata, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 181–186, 1987.
[35] A. H. Bokononganta, P. Neuenschwander, J. J. M. van alphen, and M. Vos, “Host Stage Selection and
Sex Allocation by Anagyrus mangicola (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), a Parasitoid of the Mango
Mealybug, Rastrococcus invadens (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae),” Biological Control, vol. 5, no. 4,
pp. 479-486, 1995.
[36] C. Boavida, P. Neuenschwander, and H. R. Herren, “Experimental Assessment of the Impact of the
Introduced Parasitoid Gyranusoidea tebygi Noyes on the Mango Mealybug Rastrococcus invadens
Williams, by Physical Exclusion,” Biological Control, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 99-103, 1995.
[37] C. Sengonca, Y. K. Kotikal, and M. Schade, “Olfactory reactions of Cryptolaemus montrouzieri
Mulsant (Col., Coccinellidae) and Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neur., Chrysopidae) in relation to
period of starvation,” Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde, Pflanzenschutz, Umweltschutz, vol. 68, no. 1,
pp. 9-12, 1995.
[38] R. K. M. Baskaran, L. G. Lakshmi, and S. Uthamasamy, “Comparative biology and predatory
potential of Australian ladybird beetle (Cryptolaemus montrouzieri) on Planococcus citri and
Dactylopius tomentosus,” The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 69, no. 8, pp. 605-606,
1999.

11