Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T20:24:52.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Damage to coconut palms by Azteca sp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and insecticidal control with bait, in Guyana

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

B. K. Rai
Affiliation:
Central Agricultural Station, Mon Repos, Guyana, South America.

Abstract

A general survey of coconut plantations in Guyana in 1976 indicated that in the total area of about 18 700 ha, 1000 of the 3000 ha of coconut palms on the east coast of Demerara were infested by Azteca sp. Detailed crop loss assessments on four plantations in 1970–72 indicate that the overall loss of crop to this pest in Guyana in 1976 was about 3·7 million coconuts, valued at G$372 000. Damage is partly due to mealybug, Nipaecoccus nipae (Mask.), and scale insect, Aspidiotus destructor Sign., colonies maintained by the ants and may also be partly attributed to interference with pollinating insects. Chemical control with aldrin and dieldrin sprays applied to tree trunks to create insecticide barriers and applied to whole trees with a power-sprayer and extension lance did not give adequate long-term control. Baits based on minced bovine intestine with 2% v/w ethyl alcohol were therefore assessed in field trials. Aldrin at 0·3–2·4% a.i., nonachlor at 0·3–2·0% and mirex at 0·05–0·6% were tested. Bait containing 0·1% mirex gave best results with complete kill of ants' nests 60 days after application at about 5 kg bait/ha. Mealybug and scale infestations were also eliminated by this treatment with subsequent reductions of leaf-yellowing and increases of leaf number 100 days after treatment. Up to September 1976, 0·15% mirex bait had been used to control Azteca sp. on 200 ha of coconut palms in Guyana.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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

De Almeida, E., Silva, C.. (1967). Assistencia fitossanitária no combate às pragas do cacau na Bahía.—Anais da X Reuniāo de Fitossanitaristas do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro 1966. 3536.Google Scholar
De Bach, P.., Dietrick, E. J.. & Fleschner, C. A.. (1951). Ants vs. biological control of citrus pests. California Citrograph, 36, 312, 347348.Google Scholar
Huggins, H. D.. (1928). Pollination and crop production.—Agric. J. Br. Guiana, 1, 164169.Google Scholar
Lever, R. J. A. W.. (1969). Pests of the coconut palm.—F.A.O. agric. Stud. no. 77, 190 pp.Google Scholar
Lofgren, C. S.., Stringer, C. E.., Banks, W. A.. & Bishop, P. M.. (1967). Laboratory tests with candidate bait toxicants against the imported fire ant.—Beltsville, United States Department of Agriculture. (ARS 81–14.)Google Scholar
Menon, K. P. V.. & Pandalai, K. M.. (1958). The coconut palm: a monograph.—384 pp Ernakulam, Indian Central Coconut Committee.Google Scholar
Mulla, Mir S.. & Axelrod, H.. (1974). Attractants for synanthropic flies: attractanttoxicant formulations, their potency against a Hippelates eye gnat.—J econ. Ent. 67, 1316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peregrine, D. J.. & Cherrett, J. M.. (1974). A field comparison of the modes of action of aldrin and mirex for controlling colonies of the leaf-cutting ants Atta cephalotes (L.) and Acromyrmex octospinosus (Reich) (Formicidae, Attini).—Bull, ent Res. 63, 609618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rai, B. K.. (1973). Brassolis sophorae and Castnia daedalus: chemical control of these major pests of coconut in Guyana.—J. econ. Ent. 66, 177180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silva, P.. & De Abreu, J. M.. (1967). Coletánea da serie: Inimigos do cacauicultor.—20 pp.Itabuna, Serv. Divulg. Docum. CEPLAC.Google Scholar
Van Dinther, J. B. M.. (1960). Insect pests of cultivated plants in Surinam.—Bull. LandbProefstn Surinam no. 76, 159 pp.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. E.. & Reierson, D. A.. (1969). Yellow jacket control by baiting. 1. Influence of toxicants and attractants on bait acceptance.—J. econ. Ent. 62, 11921197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wojcik, D. P.., Banks, W. A.., Plumley, J. K.. & Lofgren, C. S.. (1972). Results of laboratory tests with additional candidate bait toxicants against the imported fire ant.—USDA, ARS. (Special report) 72–03W. 43 pp.Google Scholar