Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T15:06:59.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A risk-based detection survey for the predatory mirid Macrolophus pygmaeus in New Zealand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2019

John M. Kean Open the ORCID record for John M. Kean [Opens in a new window] ,
Sarah Mansfield ,
Scott Hardwick  and
Diane M. Barton
John M. Kean*
Affiliation:
AgResearch Ltd, Ruakura Research Centre, 10 Bisley Road, Hamilton3214, New Zealand
Sarah Mansfield
Affiliation:
AgResearch Ltd, Lincoln Research Centre, 1365 Springs Road, Lincoln 7674, New Zealand
Scott Hardwick
Affiliation:
AgResearch Ltd, Lincoln Research Centre, 1365 Springs Road, Lincoln 7674, New Zealand
Diane M. Barton
Affiliation:
AgResearch Ltd, Invermay Agricultural Centre, 176 Puddle Alley, Mosgiel 9092, New Zealand
*
Author for correspondence: John M. Kean, Email: john.kean@agresearch.co.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Macrolophus pygmaeus, a predatory mirid used to manage greenhouse whitefly, was illegally imported into New Zealand, and for a time was reared and sold to commercial tomato growers. We designed and implemented a risk-based detection survey to determine whether M. pygmaeus was still present in New Zealand a decade later. The survey was designed to have an 80% chance of detecting a single low density (0.05 per lineal metre of host plants) population within 1 km of known points of introduction. The survey was implemented between 8 and 15 March 2018. Local habitat constraints meant that the planned sampling had to be modified but this was accounted for in the subsequent analysis. No M. pygmaeus were found in the samples, but 93 specimens from seven other mirid taxa were detected, validating the sample methods. The survey gives 60% confidence that M. pygmaeus was not present at a mean density of 0.05 per lineal metre of habitat. It gives 80% confidence that a population at 0.1 m−1 was not present and 90% confidence that no population exists at >0.18 m−1. Though there are no published data on typical field population densities of M. pygmaeus, for related species the survey would have had high confidence in detecting any medium to high density population present. Therefore, it is likely that M. pygmaeus is no longer present in New Zealand, but if extant within the sampled areas then we have high certainty that it was at low densities compared to other predaceous mirids.

Keywords

Proof of absenceshake clothsweep net
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 110 , Issue 3 , June 2020 , pp. 370 - 378
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

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

References

Adams, GD, Foley, DH and Pyke, BA (1984) Notes on the pest status of and sampling methods for sap-sucking bugs in cotton. Proceedings from the 1984 Australian Cotton Growers Research Conference, Toowoomba, Australia, 5 December 1984, pp. 160–166.Google Scholar
Alomar, Ò, Goula, M and Albajes, R (2002) Colonisation of tomato fields by predatory mirid bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) in northern Spain. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 89, 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, LL, MacKenzie, DI and Nichols, JD (2014) Advances and applications of occupancy models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5, 1269–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, G and Stewart, RK (1983) Sampling technique and seasonal development of phytophagous mirids (Hemiptera: Miridae) on apple in southwestern Quebec. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 76, 359–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castañé, C, Alomar, O, Goula, M and Gabarra, R (2004) Colonization of tomato greenhouses by the predatory mirid bugs Macrolophus caliginosus and Dicyphus tamaninii. Biological Control 30, 591–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castañé, C, Agustí, N, Arnó, J, Gabarra, R, Riudavets, J, Comas, J and Alomar, Ó (2013) Taxonomic identification of Macrolophus pygmaeus and Macrolophus melanotoma based on morphometry and molecular markers. Bulletin of Entomological Research 103, 204–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Backer, L, Caparros Megido, R, Haubruge, ÉJ and Verheggen, F (2014) Macrolophus pygmaeus (Rambur) as an efficient predator of the tomato leafminer Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) in Europe: a review. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment 18, 536–543.Google Scholar
Deighan, J, McPherson, RM and Ravlin, WF (1985) Comparison of sweep-net and ground-cloth sampling methods for estimating arthropod densities in different soybean cropping systems. Journal of Economic Entomology 78, 208–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, S, Dillon, M, McKinnon, C, Mansfield, S, Staines, T and Lawrence, L (2003) Giving insects a good beating. The Australian Cottongrower 24, 24.Google Scholar
Dupin, M, Brunel, S, Baker, R, Eyre, D and Makowski, D (2011) A comparison of methods for combining maps in pest risk assessment: application to Diabrotica virgifera virgifera. EPPO Bulletin 41, 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyles, AC and Schuh, RT (2003) Revision of New Zealand Bryocorinae and Phylinae (Insecta: Hemiptera: Miridae). New Zealand. Journal of Zoology 30, 263–325.Google Scholar
Eyles, AC, Marais, T and George, S (2008) First New Zealand record of the genus Macrolophus Fieber, 1858 (Hemiptera: Miridae: Bryocorinae: Dicyphini): Macrolophus pygmaeus (Rambur, 1839), a beneficial predacious insect. Zootaxa 1779, 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, AR, Eyles, AC and George, S (2010) Correction relating to the occurrence of Macrolophus pygmaeus (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Miridae: Bryocorinae: Dicyphini) in New Zealand reported in 2008. Zootaxa 2622, 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goula, M, Rovira, S, Alomar, O, Riudavets, J and Albajes, R (1991) Colonization of tomato greenhouses by two generalist predatory bugs of the greenhouse whitefly. Proceedings of the 4th European Congress of Entomology, Gödöllő, Hungary, 1–6 September 1991, pp. 296–298.Google Scholar
Hart, AJ, Tullett, AG, Bale, JS and Walters, KFA (2002) Effects of temperature on the establishment potential in the U.K. of the non-native glasshouse biocontrol agent Macrolophus caliginosus. Physiological Entomology 27, 112–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatherly, IS, Hart, AJ, Tullett, AG and Bale, JS (2005) Use of thermal data as a screen for the establishment potential of non-native biological control agents in the UK. BioControl 50, 687–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatherly, IS, Pedersen, BP and Bale, JS (2009) Effect of host plant, prey species and intergenerational changes on the prey preferences of the predatory mirid Macrolophus caliginosus. BioControl 54, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedgren, O and Weslien, J (2008) Detecting rare species with random or subjective sampling: a case study of red-listed saproxylic beetles in boreal Sweden. Conservation Biology 22, 212–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kean, JM, Burnip, GM and Pathan, A (2015) Detection survey design for decision making during biosecurity incursions. In Jarrad, FC, Low-Choy, SJ and Mengersen, K (eds), Biosecurity Surveillance: Quantitative Approaches. Wallingford: CAB International, pp. 238–252.Google Scholar
Kharboutli, MS and Allen, CT (2000) Comparison of sampling techniques for tarnished plant bug and predaceous arthropods. Proceedings of the 2000 Cotton Research Meeting and Summaries of Cotton Research in Progress, University of Arkansas, 4–8 January 2000, pp. 167–171.Google Scholar
Logan, DP (2012) CLIMEX Models for Selected Glasshouse Biological Control Agents. Plant & Food Research confidential report 6938. 22 pp.Google Scholar
Lu, YH, Qiu, F, Feng, HQ, Li, HB, Yang, ZC, Wyckhuys, KAG and Wu, KM (2008) Species composition and seasonal abundance of pestiferous plant bugs (Hemiptera: Miridae) on Bt Cotton in China. Crop Protection 27, 465–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, PAJ, Cameron, AR and Greiner, M (2007) Demonstrating freedom from disease using multiple complex data sources 1: a new methodology based on scenario trees. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 79, 71–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullan, AB, Wratt, DS, Dean, S and Hollis, M (2008) Climate Change Effects and Impacts Assessment: a Guidance Manual for Local Government in New Zealand. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report ME 870. 167 pp.Google Scholar
Sanchez, JA, Spina, ML and Perera, OP (2012) Analysis of the population structure of Macrolophus pygmaeus (Rambur) (Hemiptera: Miridae) in the Palaearctic region using microsatellite markers. Ecology and Evolution 2, 3145–3159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, JA, López-Gallego, E, Pérez-Marcos, M, Perera-Fernández, LG and Ramírez-Soria, MJ (2018) How safe is it to rely on Macrolophus pygmaeus (Hemiptera: Miridae) as a biocontrol agent in tomato crops? Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 6, 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, N and Clifford, P (1996) The incidence of insect pests and their Arthropod predators in 24 Canterbury white clover seed crops. Agronomy Society of New Zealand Special Publication 11, 29–33.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, GL, Scott, WP and Smith, JW (1984) Host plants of Taylorilygus pallidulus and Polymerus basalis (Hemiptera: Miridae) in the delta of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The Florida Entomologist 67, 402–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sylla, S, Brévault, T, Diarra, K, Bearez, P and Desneux, N (2016) Life-history traits of Macrolophus pygmaeus with different prey foods. PLoS One 11, e0166610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tait, A, Henderson, R, Turner, R and Zheng, X (2006) Thin plate smoothing spline interpolation of daily rainfall for New Zealand using a climatological rainfall surface. International Journal of Climatology 26, 2097–2115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, K and Bullians, M (2009) Rapid Assessment Report: New Information on the Introduction Event of Macrolophus pygmaeus. Biosecurity New Zealand investigation report 2007-641. 10 pp.Google Scholar
Threlfall, C, Deutscher, S, Wilson, L and Staines, T (2006) Sweeping up mirids gives net improvement. The Australian Cottongrower 26, 55–57.Google Scholar
Wade, MR, Scholz, BCG, Lloyd, RJ, Cleary, AJ, Franzmann, BA and Zalucki, MP (2006) Temporal variation in arthropod sampling effectiveness: the case for using the beat sheet method in cotton. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 120, 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, AG (2001) Biology of the Plant Bugs (Hemiptera: Miridae): Pests, Predators, Opportunists. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York, USA, 558 p.Google Scholar
Wilson, LT and Room, PM (1982) The relative efficiency and reliability of three methods for sampling arthropods in Australian cotton fields. Australian Journal of Entomology 21, 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wipfli, MS, Peterson, SS, Hogg, DB and Wedberg, JL (1992) Dispersion patterns and optimum sample size analyses for three plant bug (Heteroptera: Miridae) species associated with birdsfoot trefoil in Wisconsin. Environmental Entomology 21, 1248–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Workman, P and Davidson, M (2007) Potential Biological Control Agents for Greenhouse Pests in New Zealand. Crop & Food Research confidential report 1920. 42 pp.Google Scholar
Zalom, FG, Pickel, C, Walsh, DB and Welch, NC (1993) Sampling for Lygus hesperus (Hemiptera: Miridae) in strawberries. Journal of Economic Entomology 86, 1191–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar