2 results
CHAPTER 11 - The use of lacewings in biological control
- Edited by P. K. McEwen, Cardiff University, T. R. New, La Trobe University, Victoria, A. E. Whittington, National Museums of Scotland
-
- Book:
- Lacewings in the Crop Environment
- Published online:
- 04 May 2010
- Print publication:
- 07 June 2001, pp 296-302
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
Lacewings have long been recognised as effective predators of aphids and other arthropod pests. More than 250 years ago, Réaumur (1742) discussed the use of lacewings for biological control of aphids in greenhouses (Stiling, 1985). Many early authors noted the large range and huge numbers of insect and mite pests consumed by lacewing larvae (Killington, 1936). Balduf (1939) stated that the Chrysopidae and Hemerobiidae were very effective biological control agents, feeding on some of the world's most important agricultural and horticultural pests. However, it was not until the 20th century that studies began on their potential for biological control. According to Ridgway & Murphy (1984) the first studies of the release of lacewings for control of a pest were those of Doutt & Hagen (1949, 1950), who examined the use of lacewings for the control of mealybugs. Later, Dunn (1954) investigated the potential of the hemerobiid Micromus variegatus Fabricius as a predator of aphids.
The principal factor limiting the manipulative use of lacewings for biological control has been that of producing large numbers economically. Finney (1948, 1950) began the first studies on the mass culture and distribution of Chrysoperla carnea. During the 1960s and early 1970s, work was carried out to devise an artificial diet for lacewings, to facilitate mass-rearing (Hagen & Tassan, 1965, 1966, 1970; Vanderzant, 1969; Butler & Ritchie, 1971). Improvements in rearing methods precipitated an increase in the number of trials of field releases of lacewings, particularly C. carnea, during the 1960s and 1970s.
CHAPTER 27 - Artificial overwintering chambers for Chrysoperla carnea and their application in pest control
- Edited by P. K. McEwen, Cardiff University, T. R. New, La Trobe University, Victoria, A. E. Whittington, National Museums of Scotland
-
- Book:
- Lacewings in the Crop Environment
- Published online:
- 04 May 2010
- Print publication:
- 07 June 2001, pp 487-491
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
Leather et al. (1993) asked the pertinent question ‘What is overwintering?’ They answered themselves by quoting Mansingh (1971) who defines insect hibernation as ‘a physiological condition of growth retardation or arrest, primarily designed to overcome lower than optimum temperatures during winter or summer’. Mansingh (1971) subclassified insect hibernation into different categories depending on the insect's response to winter conditions. The three different categories are quiescence, oligopause and diapause representing, in sequence, increasingly highly evolved systems of dormancy. The common green lacewing (Chrysoperla carnea) s. lat. can be considered to enter diapause. After Leather et al. (1993) this is characterised by (1) a definite preparatory phase usually initiated by a temperature independent factor such as photoperiod; (2) absence of feeding by the insect during winter; and (3) the return of favourable conditions does not result in immediate termination of diapause – a complex series of events such as accumulation of heat units is required first.
Common green lacewings diapause in large clusters of adult insects. Observed overwintering sites include unheated parts of buildings, barns, the underside of tree bark, and leaf litter (Canard & Principi, 1984), with the choice of site partly determined by sibling species (Thierry et al., 1994). Normally, due to a combination of fluctuating temperature and predation, winter mortality is high (Sengonca & Frings, 1987). However lacewings will colonise artificial overwintering chambers especially designed for the purpose and in these overwinter survival can approach 100% (Sengonca & Henze, 1992).