Handbook of Major Palm Pests E-Book
174,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
Handbook of Major Palm Pests: Biology and Management contains the most comprehensive and up-to-date information on the red palm weevil and the palm borer moth, two newly emergent invasive palm pests which are adversely affecting palm trees around the world. It provides state-of-the-art scientific information on the ecology, biology, and management of palm pests from a global group of experts in the field.
An essential compendium for anyone working with or studying palms, it is dedicated to the detection, eradication, and containment of these invasive species, which threaten the health and very existence of global palm crops.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 704
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright
Contributors
Nomenclature
N1: Common palm names
N2: Palm organs
N3: Semiochemicals
Introduction
Invasive Alien Species
R. ferrugineus
and
P. archon
: Invasive Pests of Palm Trees
Palm Protect
Overview
Conclusion
Acknowledgment
References
Chapter 1: Some Representative Palm Pests: Ecological and Practical Data
1.1 Introduction
1.2 General Features About Palms and their Pests
1.3 Crown and Stem Borers
1.4 Defoliators of Fronds (= Leaves)
1.5 Sap and Frond (= Leaves) Feeders?
1.6 Inflorescence and Fruit Borers
1.7 Roots
1.8 Conclusion
References
Chapter 2: Morphology and Physiology of Palm Trees as Related to Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon Infestation and Management
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Palms in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin
2.3 Palm Morphology and Anatomy
2.4 The Palm Crown
2.5 The Structure of the Palm Stem
2.6 Conclusion
References
Chapter 3: Economic and Social Impacts of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon on Palms
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Ecosystem Services Provided by Palms
3.3 Impacts and Costs of Mitigation
3.4 Conclusion
References
Chapter 4: Rhynchophorus ferrugineus: Taxonomy, Distribution, Biology, and Life Cycle
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Taxonomy and Distribution
4.3 Biology and Host Plants
4.4 Life Cycle and Adaptation to the Temperate and Desert Areas
4.5 Conclusion
References
Chapter 5: Rhynchophorus ferrugineus: Behavior, Ecology, and Communication
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Main Behaviors Involved in Species Dynamics
5.3 Chemical Cues
5.4 Vision and Visual Cues
5.5 Conclusion
References
Chapter 6: Paysandisia archon: Taxonomy, Distribution, Biology, and Life Cycle
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Taxonomy of the Castniidae
6.3 Distribution of
P. archon
6.4 Morphology of
P. archon
Stages
6.5 Biology
6.6 Conclusion
References
Chapter 7: Paysandisia archon: Behavior, Ecology, and Communication
7.1 Introduction
7.2
P. archon
Reproductive Behavior
7.3 Host-Finding and Chemical Cues
7.4 Visual Cues: Their Roles in Mate and Host Location
References
Chapter 8: Natural Enemies of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Natural Enemies
8.3 Perspectives on Biological Control of
R. ferrugineus
and
P. archon
References
Chapter 9: Visual Identification and Characterization of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon Infestation
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Non-Pathognomonic Symptoms
9.3 Pathognomonic Symptoms
9.4 Identification of RPW Infestation
9.5 Identification of PBM Infestation
9.6 Simultaneous Infestation of Both Pests and Co-Occurrence with Other Pests or Diseases
9.7 Conclusion
References
Chapter 10: Surveillance Techniques and Detection Methods for Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Acoustic Detection
10.3 Chemical Detection
10.4 Thermal Detection
10.5 Detection of Pest Distribution by Monitoring Traps
10.6 Conclusion
References
Chapter 11: CPLAS Information System as a Monitoring Tool for Integrated Management of Palm Pests
11.1 Introduction
11.2 CPLAS Architecture and Functions
11.3 Web-mapping Service of CPLAS
11.4 Conclusion
References
Chapter 12: Control Measures Against Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon
12.1 Why Control of
R. ferrugineus
and
P. archon
is so Difficult: Reasons to Deal with Both of these Pests Together
12.2 Current Control Methods
12.3 Future Needs and Trends
References
Chapter 13: Action Programs for Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon
13.1 Introduction
13.2 General Measures against all IAS
13.3 Threats and Risks presented by IAS: The case of RPW and PBM
13.4 The Action Plan as Part of a Global Strategy for the Containment of RPW and PBM Infestations
13.5 Analysis of Pest Status and Distribution of RPW and PBM as a Strategy for Detecting Change and Emerging Impacts
13.6 Establishing Effective Systems to Assess Risk and Prioritize Management
13.7 Definition of an Early Warning and Monitoring System
13.8 Citizen Involvement in Undertaking Voluntary Measures to Counteract the Spread of RPW and PBM
13.9 Setup of an RPW and PBM Portal Online
13.10 Development of Funding Mechanisms to Manage RPW and PBM Infestations
13.11 Case Studies
13.12 Action Programs for Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Areas
13.13 Conclusion and Future Outlook
References
Index
End User License Agreement
Pages
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xxi
xxii
xxiii
xxiv
xxv
xxvi
xxvii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
Guide
Table of Contents
Introduction
Begin Reading
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1: Some Representative Palm Pests: Ecological and Practical Data
Figure 1.1 (a)
O. rhinoceros
adult. (b) Coconut palm damaged by
O. rhinoceros.
(c) Coconut crown damaged by
O. rhinoceros
.
Figure 1.2 (a)
S. australis
adult (male). (b) Damage due to
S. australis
attack.
Figure 1.3 (a) Damaged
P. dactylifera
. (b)
R. ferrugineus
adult. (c)
R. ferrugineus
larva.
Figure 1.4 (a)
C. daedalus
adult. (b) Holes as a result of
C. daedalus
caterpillar boring into the stem at the leaf bases of oil palm.
Figure 1.5 (a)
P. archon
adult. (b)
P. archon
last-instar larva. (c)
T. fortunei
killed by
P. archon
caterpillars.
Figure 1.6 (a)
P. dactyliferae
larva. (b)
P. dactyliferae
adult.
Figure 1.7 (a)
B. longissima
adult. (b) and (c) Damage on coconut palms in the nursery.
Figure 1.8 (a) Outbreak of
C. lameensis
on oil palm trees. (b) Tunnels within the foliar tissue. (c)
C. lameensis
larva. (d)
C. lameensis
adult.
Figure 1.9 (a)
S. nitens
caterpillar showing urticating spines. (b) Defoliation on oil palm due to
S. nitens.
(c) Damaged leaf.
Figure 1.10 Damage of
S. nonagrioides
on
W. filifera
. (a) and (b) Presence of perforated leaves. (c) Presence of larval gallery hole within leaf rachis. (d)
S. nonagrioides
larva and (e) adult.
Figure 1.11 (a)
P. dactylifera
affected by
O. binotatus
. (b)
O. binotatus
immature stages. (c) Damaged axils of leaflets on rachis.
Figure 1.12 (a)
A. destructor
scales. (b) Dry coconut leaves. (c) Yellow coconut leaves.
Figure 1.13 (a) Coconut affected by
A. atratus
. (b)
A. atratus
affecting coconut in the nursery. (c)
A. atratus
puparium.
Figure 1.14 (a)
B. amydraula
adult (Source: Lepesme 1947). (b)
B. amydraula
larva boring into date fruit. (c) Damage on immature date fruit.
Figure 1.15 (a)
T. rufivena
caterpillar damaging coconut flowers. (b) Dry inflorescences of coconut due to
T. rufivena
caterpillars.
Figure 1.16 (a)
C. cautella
adult. (b) and (c) Damage on date fruit by
C. cautella
larva. Reproduced with permissions of HP Aberlenc.
Figure 1.17 (a)
A. sabella
adult. (b)
A. sabella
damages the peduncle of the inflorescence.
Figure 1.18 (a)
V. livia
adult. (b), (c), and (d) Damage on fruit due to
V. livia
caterpillar.
Figure 1.19
C. dactyliperda
L., male (left side) and female (right side) (35× magnification) (from Lepesme 1947).
Figure 1.20 (a)
C. hemipterus
(10× magnification) (from Lepesme 1947). (b) Dates damaged by
Carpophilus
. (c) Date infested with
Carpophilus
larvae.
Figure 1.21 (a)
S. sunidesalis
last-instar larva. (b) Repeated reiterations of oil palm root system. (c) Typical symptoms on oil palm primary roots attacked by
S. sunidesalis
. (d) Coconut palms affected by
S. sunidesalis
.
Chapter 2: Morphology and Physiology of Palm Trees as Related to Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon Infestation and Management
Figure 2.1 Organization of the palm “heart.” (a) Scanning electron micrograph of the apical meristem of a 4-year-old date palm surrounded by the three youngest leaf primordia. (b) Developing leaves within the palm heart. (c) A small developing leaf showing the developing petiole and blade attached to the circular leaf sheath. The empty center is the place where younger leaves have developed. (d, e) Cross-section through the center of the crown of a mature date palm. The developing leaves and the apical meristem region (black dot) can be seen. The region below the meristem will differentiate into the upper stem.
Figure 2.2 Dissection through the palm heart and the apical meristem. (a) Dissection above the apical meristem of a young, 4-year-old date palm. The organization of the leaf sheaths (outer leaves) and rachis and petioles (younger, inner leaves) is clearly visible. (b) Dissection through the same palm heart, approximately 5 mm lower. Since the cut is below the meristem, no structural organization of leaves is detected. (c) Dissection through the crown of a RPW-infected Canary palm to rescue the tree. The “kaleidoscope” pattern of leaf sheaths, rachis and blades confirms that the dissection level is above the meristem. (d, e) Recovery of the same Canary palm tree, 45 days and 11 months, respectively, after the treatment.
Figure 2.3 Infestation of date palm with RPW at the base of the stem. (a) No symptoms, except a dry offshoot, were detected. Removal of the offshoot reveals a very large cavity at the base of the stem. (b) An infested date palm with a large cavity filling most of the stem interior. Adventitious roots have formed and are growing into the cavity.
Chapter 3: Economic and Social Impacts of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon on Palms
Figure 3.1 Plantation of date palms in the Jordan Valley, Israel. Reproduced with permissions of Neil Audsley, Israel, 2012.
Figure 3.2 View of the palm trees within the city of Elche, Spain. Reproduced with permissions of Alan Macleod, Spain, 2013.
Figure 3.3 Palm trees providing shade in a resort closed to the city of Catania, Italy. Reproduced with permissions of Alan Macleod, Italy, 2014.
Chapter 4: Rhynchophorus ferrugineus: Taxonomy, Distribution, Biology, and Life Cycle
Figure 4.1 The main forms of the life cycle of the red palm weevil. Adults: A. Female with a thin, long, and glabrous rostrum and C. male with a stockier rostrum bearing a patch of setae at the distal part. The pictures illustrate two morphs: a red one and a dark one, with a few and strong black markings, respectively. Note the extremity of the abdomen not covered by the elytra and the truncated antennal club made of fused segments, which are typical of the Dryophthorine weevils. B. Egg (arrow) removed from the substrate where it was inserted by the female. Note the same colors of the eggs and of the substrate. D. Mature larva bearing a large and hard head with powerful mandibles but without legs, which are typical features of weevils' larvae. E. Cocoon made by the larva with palm fibers which protects the pupa. The rounded end (right) corresponds to the starting point and the truncated end (left) to the termination point. The cocoon has been withdrawn from the palm frond where it was inserted. F. Pupae extracted from their cocoons. The upper and lower individuals correspond to a male and a female, respectively, based on the length of the rostrum sheath: the tip goes beyond the sheath of the fore tibiae in the female but not in the male. The horizontal black bar in the pictures represents 1 cm (A, C–F) or 1 mm (B). (All pictures by Didier Rochat; INRA, France)
Figure 4.2 Western distribution area of the RPW, with chronology of invasion from 1985. Caribbean and Far Eastern areas are not illustrated. The entire concerned countries are colored according to the date of first report irrespective of the actual zones where outbreaks occurred. Green: native area, established before 1980. First reports from: 1980–89 (yellow), 1990–99 (pale orange), 2000–2009 (bright orange), and 2010–2015 (red). Striped coloring with same coding as above indicates an uncertain situation: Pakistan: RPW should be a native species originally growing on local
Phoenix dactylifera
and
Phoenix sylvestris
. Iraq: an ancient dubious report suggests RPW possibly native on date palm. Current presence has been reported but without precise dating for first outbreak. Russia: only a portion of Russia is colored with an arbitrary northern limit. Gray: areas under high threat due to proximity of infested countries and reports of palm movements.
Figure 4.3 Simulations of RPW development and adult availability based on the life parameters and standard climatic data. A. Times of development. B. Adult presence probability. C. Flight probability in three cities of the Mediterranean Basin: Perpignan, Palermo, and Tel Aviv with increasing mean yearly temperature (MYT) and decreasing winter stringency (NMT and XMT: Minimum and maximum mean monthly temperatures) under four realistic thermal scenarios of exposure: mean air temperature (thin solid lines in B and C), inner palm temperature (thin dotted lines), and RPW infestation: low to moderate (medium dotted line) and moderate to high (thick dotted line). A. Offspring: number of expected adults in 1 year based on 1 egg laid per day when the temperature is above egg-laying threshold. In brackets, the percentage that emerge the year after egg-laying (grayed bars). Parameters for simulation taken from the references in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. Mortality is based on Dembilio and Jacas (2011). Flight optimum from Hamidi
et al
. (in preparation). Flight was estimated based on 75% contribution of maximum daily temperatures and 25% by adults warmed in palm when internal palm temperature was greater than the air maximum temperature. B. and C. Curves for females based on estimates as reported in Section 4.4.4. Simulations are based on public data from Meteo France, with daily temperature values.
Chapter 5: Rhynchophorus ferrugineus: Behavior, Ecology, and Communication
Figure 1 Flight mill device in the Volcani Center (Israel) with a tethered red palm weevil at the tip of the rotating arm. Black and white stripes are installed to provide visual stimuli for the flying weevil.
Figure 2 Visual system of
R. ferrugineus
. A. compound eye at the base of the rostrum (Ro). B., semi-thin sections of the retina; longitudinal section showing the cornea (C), crystalline cones (CC), primary pigment cells (PPC), photoreceptors (R). Inset, cross-section showing rhabdom (Rh) composed of six rhabdomeres at the periphery of the ommatidium and one rhabdomere at the center of the ommatidium, embedded in chitin (H). The macro photo was obtained with a USB microscope; the semi-thin sections were fixed with 3.5% glutaraldehyde and 4% paraformaldehyde, embedded in Spurr's resin, cut with a glass knife (1.5 µm) and stained with Azur II. Scale bars: A. 0.5 mm, B. main picture, 50 µm, inset, 20 µm.
Figure 3 Spectral sensitivity of
R. ferrugineus
(A, B) and reflectance of its cuticle (C). A. Spectral sensitivity measured with electroretinography (ERG). Grey, black, and dashed curves correspond to sensitivity measured in the dark-adapted state, or with green (520 nm) and UV (360 nm) adapting light, respectively. Chromatic adaptation reveals selective suppression of sensitivity in the UV or non-selective suppression in the whole spectrum, corresponding to at least two classes of photoreceptors with peak sensitivity in the UV (360 nm) and a class with broadband sensitivity with peaks at 520 nm and 360 nm. B. Spectral sensitivity measured with sharp intracellular electrode. Photoreceptor classes are: thick curve, broadband-sensitive (λ
max
= 524 nm; N = 30), dashed curve, UV-sensitive (λ
max
= 366 nm; N = 3); thin curve, green-sensitive (λ
max
= 521 nm; N = 19); dotted curve, yellow-sensitive (λ
max
= 564 nm; N = 4). C. Reflectance of the red part of the weevil's cuticle, relative to the reflectance of an MgO standard, illuminated with a xenon arc lamp. Dotted bars, average sensitivities of the three classes of retinal photoreceptors with narrow-band sensitivity. Reflectance rises sharply above 550 nm. This can be optimally detected by two distinct classes of long-wavelength photoreceptors.
Chapter 6: Paysandisia archon: Taxonomy, Distribution, Biology, and Life Cycle
Figure 6.1 Global distribution of
P. archon
: (a) South America; (b) Europe. Black circles: pest presence; gray circles: pest presence in only a few areas; white circles: pest eradicated; na: pest present but not actionable; ue: pest under eradication; nc: pest presence reported but not confirmed.
Figure 6.2 Detailed distribution of
P. archon
in Italy. Dates indicate the first PBM report in each region.
Figure 6.3
P. archon
stages: (a) egg; (b) first instar larva; (c) larvae in various instars; (d) cocoon and pupa; (e) adult. (Source: Images by Paola Riolo)
Chapter 7: Paysandisia archon: Behavior, Ecology, and Communication
Figure 7.1 Flowchart of behavioral transition probabilities representing successful courtship sequences for
P. archon
. Diamonds (and the square, representing the final step) represent the main courtship sequence; circles represent other male behaviors, and triangles represent other female behaviors. Numbers and corresponding thicknesses of arrows (see legend) are conditional probabilities of a particular transition occurring between two behavioral acts. Transitions of < 0.20 are not included, to enhance the clarity of the Figure Descriptions and abbreviations of behaviors are listed in Table 7.1 (from Riolo
et al
. 2014).
Figure 7.2
P. archon
ovipositor. (a) Light microscopic dorsal view showing 8th uromere, intersegmental membrane (IM), 9th and 10th uromeres, and apodemes (Ap). (b) SEM detail of intersegmental membrane outer surface. (c, d) Cross-section of 9th and 10th uromeres at positions A and B (Figure 7.2a). (e, f) Cross-section of intersegmental membrane at positions C and D (Figure 7.2a). In, integument; Pr, proctodeum; Mu, muscle; Tr, trachea. Scale bar: 1 mm (a), 2 µm (b), 200 µm (c–f) (from Riolo
et al
. 2014).
Figure 7.3 Percentage of virgin and mated female landings observed on either palm leaves or crown under wind-tunnel conditions (
n
= 29 and
n
= 61, respectively) (Hamidi and Frérot, 2016).
Figure 7.4 Schematic drawing (a) and SEM overall view (b) of an antenna of a
P. archon
male. SC, scape; PE, pedicel; FL, flagellum; CL, club; AP, apiculus. Scale bars: 1 mm (from Ruschioni
et al
. 2015).
Figure 7.5 Representative SEM (a, b, e, f, i, j) and TEM (c, d, g, h, k, l) images of the most abundant sensillae on the antennae of
P. archon
. (a–d) Sensilla trichoidea, showing low-magnification details (a), herringbone grooves and pores (P) (b), and cross-sections of the shaft with thick-walled cuticle pierced by pores (P) and outer dendritic segments (ODS) with three sensory neurons (c), and of the base with three sensory neurons enclosed in a common dendritic sheath (ODS) (d). (e–h) Sensilla basiconica, showing low-magnification details (e), the numerous pores (P) (f), cross-section of the shaft with the thin-walled cuticle with pores (P), and dendritic branches (DB) (g), and an oblique section of the base at the level of the ciliary constriction (CC) (h). (i–l) Sensilla auricilica, showing low-magnification details (i), the numerous pores (P) (j), cross-section of the shaft with the thin-walled cuticle with pores (P), and dendritic branches (DB) (k), and an oblique section of the base, with two sensory neurons enclosed in a common dendritic sheath (ODS) (l). Scale bars: 10 µm (a); 2 µm (d, e, h, l); 1 µm (b, g, i, k); 500 nm (c); 200 nm (f, j) (Ruschioni
et al
. 2015).
Figure 7.6 Representative SEM images of the less numerous sensilla types.
Figure 7.7 Visual system of
P. archon
. (a) The compound eye (RE, retina) and ocellus (OC) of a female moth, immobilized with beeswax (yellow mass). The compound eye has multiple pronounced pseudopupils (dark spots). (b) Semi-thin cross-section of the distal part of the retina, with (distal to proximal): cornea (C), crystalline cones (CC), primary pigment cells (PPC) and photoreceptor cells (R) showing dark stripes of perirhabdomal pigment granules. The rhabdoms of the photoreceptor cells (adjacent to the perirhabdomal pigments) connect to the tip of the CC. Scale bar: 1 µm (a), 20 µm (b).
Figure 7.8 Spectral sensitivity of
P. archon
ocelli (a) and compound eyes (b, c) and representative spectra of the relevant environmental cues. (a) Spectral sensitivity of ocellus, measured by ERG. Data are fitted with double nomogram function with peak sensitivities at 350 and 550 nm. (b) Distribution of spectral sensitivity peaks of impaled photoreceptors, grouped in 10 nm bins. The 40 cells comprise three clearly distinguishable classes (UV peaking at 355 nm, blue peaking at 454 nm, long wavelength, LW). The peaks of the LW photoreceptors are widely dispersed across a 50 nm interval (550–600 nm) with bimodal distribution, forming two distinct classes (green-sensitive peaking at 550 nm, orange-sensitive peaking at 570 nm). (c) Spectral sensitivity of a compound eye obtained with ERG. Data are smoothed by adjacent averaging. Black curve shows sensitivity of dark-adapted retina. Pink, blue, and green curves correspond to retina adapted with UV, blue, and green light at 395, 445, and 550 nm, respectively. Chromatic adaptation reveals selective suppression of sensitivity in the three parts of the spectrum, corresponding to at least three classes of photoreceptors with peak sensitivities at 350, 450, and 550 nm. (d) Reflectance spectra of relevant visual cues. Dotted bars show average sensitivities of four classes of retinal photoreceptors. Orange curve shows the reflectance spectrum of orange scales on the inner wings. Reflectance rises monotonically above 500 nm with the steepest slope between 550 and 600 nm, coinciding with the peaks of the two LW photoreceptor classes. In addition, there is a smaller reflectance peak in the UV. The green curve shows reflectance of the host-plant leaves (
Washingtonia filifera
). The leaves have a reflectance peak in the green part (550 nm) and in the near infrared part of the spectrum (>700 nm). The gray curve shows that the reflectance spectrum of the trunk, which appears silvery-brown to us, has a flat reflectance spectrum that rises slightly toward the LW part.
Figure 7.9 Simulation of an urban visual scene containing palm trees using the visual acuity of
P. archon
. The scene extends about 90° × 60°. (a) RGB picture taken with the polarizer set horizontally to minimize sky irradiance. (b) RGB picture taken with the polarizer set vertically and down-sampled to match the optical acuity of
P. archon
. (c) Polarization and intensity contrast in the red channel. (d) Polarization and intensity contrast in the blue channel. Non-polarized pixels are shown in gray; magenta and green tints indicate vertical and horizontal polarizations, respectively. Down-sampled facets span approximately 1.5°.
Chapter 8: Natural Enemies of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon
Figure 8.1 (a) Different states of PBM eggs. Unhatched eggs were dissected to see if they were infested or aborted. Dissection of these eggs revealed a grayish-yellow liquid substance (8× magnification). (b) Dissected PBM egg: the liquid indicates that the egg was aborted (neither embryo pest nor parasitoid is observed). Rarely, a dead young larva was found inside (11× magnification). (c) Female
Trichogramma
laying eggs in a PBM egg (23× magnification). (d, e) Egg of parasitized PBM, after dissection (16× magnification). The content reveals several
Trichogramma
pre-nymphs (recognizable by their red eyes).
Figure 8.2 Mites from the family Uropodidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) in association with RPW adults. (Photo by Victoria Soroker)
Figure 8.3 (A) Natural epizootics of
Beauveria
and
Metarhizium
spp. in RPW population in Israel. Adults infected with
Metarhizium
spp. ventral and dorsal views. (B) Cocoons infected with
Beauveria
spp. (C, D) Adults and (E, F) larvae infected with
Beauveria
and
Metarhizium
spp., respectively. (G) Dark spots indicate the entry points of fungal invasion. (Photos by Alex Protasov and Shlomit Levsky)
Chapter 9: Visual Identification and Characterization of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon Infestation
Figure 9.34
C. humilis
infested by
P. archon
.
Figure 9.17 Collapsed infested crowns of (a)
Washingtonia
sp. and (b)
P. dactylifera
(infested palm marked with an arrow).
Figure 9.8 Inspection window cut in the crown of
P. canariensis
.
Figure 9.13 Asymmetric inner leaf growth on Canary palm.
Figure 9.16 Canary palms with the typical “umbrella” shape crown.
Figure 9.9 Holes in Canary palm leaves.
Figure 9.10 Damaged leaves of Canary palm.
Figure 9.11 Damaged leaf of
Trachycarpus fortunei
showing a series of consecutive perforations in a circular pattern.
Figure 9.21 Dry or fresh emission of sawdust from
Washingtonia
sp. stipe.
Figure 9.1 Flattened crown of a Canary palm (
P. canariensis
).
Figure 9.2 Gap in the crown of Canary palm.
Figure 9.15 Absence of new young leaves in Canary palm.
Figure 9.3 Canary palms with broken leaves (arrows).
Figure 9.6 Canary palm.
Figure 9.12 Collapsed leaves on Canary palm.
Figure 9.7 Date palm.
Figure 9.20 Dry sawdust emitted from infested date palm.
Figure 9.26 Dry or wet material oozing from the stipe of
P. dactylifera
. At this stage, the crown usually remains green with no obvious symptoms.
Figure 9.28 Infested by RPW: (a)
Brahea
(
= Erythaea
) sp. (b)
Ravenea
broken below the crown
.
(c)
Syagrus
stipe with marks of oozing, cocoons, and larvae. Reproduced with permission from Yaakov Nakach.
Figure 9.27
Washingtonia
sp. palm tree infested (a) at the top and (b) at the bottom of the stipe.
Figure 9.22 Fresh sawdust extruding from larval galleries in
Howea forsteriana
stipe.
Figure 9.23 Abundant sawdust extruding from larval galleries in the crown of
T. fortunei
.
Figure 9.24 Liquid oozing from the stipe of
Washingtonia
sp.
Figure 9.25 Liquid oozing from the stipe of
H. forsteriana
.
Figure 9.32
T. fortunei
infested by
P. archon
.
Figure 9.29 Distinctive oval gallery holes caused by the activity of PBM larvae in the leaf petiole of Canary palm.
Figure 9.30
P. archon
: small egg cluster and egg chorion on the stipe (indicated by arrow).
Figure 9.31
P. archon
: pupal exuviae protruding from the stipe.
Figure 9.35 Holes caused by
D. frumenti
(in Canary islands)
.
Figure 9.36 New leaves of queen palm damaged by
O. nipae
(in Cyprus). Reproduced with permission of V. Vassileiou Cyprus, 2012.
Figure 9.37 Damage to date palm fronds by
O. agamemnon.
Chapter 10: Surveillance Techniques and Detection Methods for Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon
Figure 10.1 Microphone fixed magnetically to a nail inserted into the palm trunk. (Source: Hetzroni 2012)
Figure 10.2 Percentage of segments suspected of being beetle activity over a period of 3 days. (Source: Hetzroni
et al
., unpublished data)
Figure 10.3 Dog detection tests carried out under semi-field conditions: Left: one Rottweiler and two Golden Retrievers inspect
P. canariensis
. Right: German Shepherd “marks” detection of infested
P. dactylifera
.
Figure 10.4 Dogs' ability to detect infested palms as a function of infestation development in
P. canariensis
and
T. fortunei
.
Figure 10.5 Inspection of nursery-grown palms by sniffer dogs. Detection of a
C. humilis
infested by PBM during field tests (right). Potted
P. canariensis
palm, artificially infested with one RPW larva (bottom).
Figure 10.6 Stomatal conductance (SC; left) and canopy temperature (right) of infested and non-infested Canary palm seedlings. Bars represent confidence intervals of 95%.
Figure 10.7 RGB (left) and thermal (right) images of date palm trees in a commercial plantation using a specially designed mast. In the thermal image, higher temperatures are observed (yellowish color) in part of the canopy of an infested tree (on the left) compared with lower temperatures (bluish colors) in the canopy of a healthy tree. The images were captured from cameras attached to a 20 m high pole.
Figure 10.8 The Picusan® trap.
Chapter 11: CPLAS Information System as a Monitoring Tool for Integrated Management of Palm Pests
Figure 11.1 General architecture of CPLAS database.
Figure 11.2 GUI and multimedia content of the decision support system of the CPLAS.
Figure 11.3 CPLAS GUI and multimedia content of the decision support system for infestation in the crowns of Canary palms.
Figure 11.4 Decision process of the CPLAS decision support system.
Figure 11.5 CPLAS GUI and multimedia content of the decision support system for date palms.
Figure 11.6 CPLAS GUI and multimedia content of the recommendations of the decision support system for date palms.
Figure 11.7 CPLAS mobile GIS layers of Pedion Areos Park, Athens, Greece. Points indicate the positions of palms; numbers correspond to the recorded number of palms in the monitored area; the color of the points indicates infestation risk of palm trees by RPW with a gradation of colors from cold to warm for low to high risk, respectively.
Figure 11.8 Spatiotemporal analysis of the infestation risk of palms by the RPW at Pedion Areos Park (March to October 2014); color indicates infestation risk according to the 10-class infestation risk scale of CPLAS with gradation from cold colors for low risk to warm colors for high risk; percentages in the pies represent palms classified at different risk levels out of the total number of palm trees in the park.
Figure 11.9 Mobile GIS layers of the National Garden of Athens, Greece. Points indicate position of the monitoring traps for the RPW and numbers correspond to the traps' serial numbers; the color of the circles at the bottom of the palm tree sketches indicates the infestation risk of palm trees by the RPW with a gradation of colors from cold to warm for low to high risk, respectively; in the last layer, the palm tree species can be accessed.
Figure 11.10 Spatiotemporal analysis of infestation risk (a) and trap captures (b) in the National Garden of Athens, Greece (May and June 2014). Color indicates infestation risk according to the 10-class infestation risk scale of CPLAS with gradation from cold colors for low risk to warm colors for high risk.
Figure 11.11 CPLAS mobile GIS layers of the Bahá'í Gardens, Haifa, Israel. In the first layer: small points indicate the position of the palms; numbers correspond to the recorded number of palms in the monitored area; the color of the points indicates infestation risk of palm trees by the RPW with a gradation of colors from cold to warm for low to high risk, respectively; large points indicate the position of the monitoring traps for RPW. In the second layer: demarcated areas indicate different infestation risk of palm trees by the RPW with a gradation of colors from cold to warm for low to high risk, respectively.
Figure 11.12 CPLAS spatiotemporal analysis of infestation risk to palms by the RPW at Bahá'í Gardens (January to July 2014); color indicates infestation risk according to the 10-class infestation risk scale of CPLAS with gradation from cold colors for low risk to warm colors for high risk; percentages in the pies represent palms classified at different risk levels out of the total number of palm trees in the gardens.
Figure 11.13 Mobile GIS layers of Maale Gamla and Ramot, Israel.
Figure 11.14 CPLAS spatial analysis of infestation risk of date palm in Ramot on December 16, 2014 (left) and January 13, 2015 (right); color indicates infestation risk according to the 10-class infestation risk scale of CPLAS with gradation from cold colors for low risk to warm colors for high risk.
Figure 11.15 CPLAS mobile GIS layers where Cretan palms are indicated with green points on the background map at Preveli forest, Crete, and individual photos of each palm can be accessed.
Figure 11.16 A web page of the CPLAS web-mapping site for the National Garden of Athens, Greece. In the upper middle portion of the web page, the web mapping is presented; in the lower middle portion of the web page, the queries menu is shown together with the recorded data (table).
Figure 11.17 The 3D web-mapping page of the CPLAS web-mapping site for the National Garden of Athens, Greece.
Chapter 12: Control Measures Against Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon
Figure 12.1 Crown sanitation: different steps of the integrated approach applied to
P. canariensis
. A. Spherical pruning operation. B. Washing of the crown with water at high pressure. C. Crown after pruning. D. Spray treatment (chemical and/or biological) including a fungicide to prevent subsequent fungal infection.
Figure 12.2 Crown sanitation: apical bud growth in
P. canariensis
2 weeks (a) and 2 months (b) after spherical pruning and sanitation.
Figure 12.3 Glue application on a
P. canariensis
palm stipe.
Figure 12.4 New injection device developed during the Palm Protect project.
Chapter 13: Action Programs for Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon
Figure 13.1 Flow chart of measures to be taken against both the RPW and the PBM.
Figure 13.2 Official demarcated area for the presence of the PBM in the Marche region, for the years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.
List of Tables
Chapter 3: Economic and Social Impacts of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon on Palms
Table 3.1 Ecosystem services provided by palms as grouped following the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services (CICES) categories
Chapter 4: Rhynchophorus ferrugineus: Taxonomy, Distribution, Biology, and Life Cycle
Table 4.1 List and status of RPW host plants: Literature revisited with focus on invasion area
Table 4.2 Red palm weevil (RPW) thermal thresholds for adult activity and longevity
Table 4.3 Left: red palm weevil thermal thresholds for development. Right: examples of development times according to yearly mean temperatures
Chapter 5: Rhynchophorus ferrugineus: Behavior, Ecology, and Communication
Table 5.1 Field activity of synthetic compounds evaluated for enhancing attraction to the aggregation pheromone of various palm weevils and a related species
Chapter 6: Paysandisia archon: Taxonomy, Distribution, Biology, and Life Cycle
Table 6.1 List and status of
P. archon
host plants
Chapter 7: Paysandisia archon: Behavior, Ecology, and Communication
Table 7.1 Behaviors observed in
P. archon
males and females during courtship (from Riolo
et al
. 2014)
Chapter 10: Surveillance Techniques and Detection Methods for Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon
Table 10.1 A female Labrador Retriever's ability to discriminate between palms infested with one young RPW larva and non-infested palms in an open nursery. True positive (TP); false negative (FN); false positive (FP)
Table 10.2 Labrador Retriever's detection of PBM-infested
C. humilis
Table 10.3 Trap comparisons carried out within Palm Protect project
a
Table 10.4 Pros and cons of the three main detection methods
Chapter 11: CPLAS Information System as a Monitoring Tool for Integrated Management of Palm Pests
Table 11.1 CPLAS decision support system for infestation risk assessment for
P. dactylifera
and
P. theophrasti
Chapter 12: Control Measures Against Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon
Table 12.1 Active substances, doses, and application techniques authorized for use against
R. ferrugineus
and
P. archon
in different EU countries
Chapter 13: Action Programs for Rhynchophorus ferrugineus and Paysandisia archon
Table 13.1 RPW trap numbers and density during 1999–2012
Table 13.2 A comparison of weevil detection and management in 1999 and 2009 in Israel
Table 13.3 Different palm species infested by the RPW in Sicily (from Raciti
et al
. 2013; Longo
et al
. 2011)
Table 13.4 Main constraints to the efficacy of the control measures adopted in Italy at the beginning of RPW infestations
Table 13.5 Phytosanitary emergency measures applied against the RPW invasion in the Marche region (Italy) (from Nardi
et al
. 2011)
Table 13.6 Phytosanitary emergency measures applied against PBM invasion in the Marche region (central eastern Italy)
Handbook of Major Palm Pests
Biology and Management
Edited by
Victoria Soroker
The Volcani Center, Israel
Stefano Colazza
University of Palermo, Italy
This edition first published 2017 © 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Registered office:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial offices: 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.
The right of Victoria Soroker and Stefano Colazza to be identified as the authors of the editorial work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author(s) have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Applied for:
9781119057451
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.
Cover image: Victoria Soroker and Pompeo Suma
Contributors
Victor Alchanatis
Institute of Agricultural Engineering
Agricultural Research Organization
The Volcani Center
Rishon LeZion
Israel
Neil Audsley
Fera Science Ltd
Sand Hutton
York
United Kingdom
Shay Barkan
Department of Entomology
Agricultural Research Organization
The Volcani Center
Rishon LeZion
Israel
Joan Manel Barroso
Endoterapia Vegetal SL
Girona
Spain
Laurence Beaudoin-Ollivier
Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD)
Biological System Department
Research Unit Bioagresseurs
France
Gregor Belušič
Department of Biology
Biotechnical Faculty
University of Ljubljana
Slovenia
Paul Benjamin
Bahá'í Gardens
Bahá'í World Center
Haifa
Israel
Maurane Buradino
INRA PACA Center
National Institute of Agriculture
UEFM
Entomology and Mediterranean Forest Unit
France
Yafit Cohen
Institute of Agricultural Engineering
Agricultural Research Organization
The Volcani Center
Rishon LeZion
Israel
Yuval Cohen
Department of Fruit Trees Sciences
Institute of Plant Sciences
Agricultural Research Organization
The Volcani Center
Rishon LeZion
Israel
Stefano Colazza
Department of Agricultural and Forest Sciences
University of Palermo
Italy
Oscar Dembilio
Universitat Jaume I
Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
Campus del Riu Sec
Spain
Abd El Moneam El Banna
Agriculture Research Center
Egypt
Brigitte Frérot
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Sciences of Paris
Sensory Ecology Department (UMR 1392)
Institut national de la recherche agronomique
France
Inmaculada Garrido-Jurado
Unidad Entomologia Agricola
Dpto. Ciencias y Recursos Agricolas y Forestales
Campus de Rabanales C4 2 planta
Spain
Stella Giorgoudelli
Benaki Phytopathological Institute
Athens
Greece
Eitan Goldshtein
Institute of Agricultural Engineering
Agricultural Research Organization
The Volcani Center
Rishon LeZion
Israel
Ofri Golomb
Institute of Agricultural Engineering
Agricultural Research Organization
The Volcani Center
Ofri Golomb
Israel
Salvatore Guarino
Department of Agricultural and Forest Sciences
University of Palermo
Italy
Rachid Hamidi
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Sciences of Paris
Sensory Ecology Department (UMR 1392)
Institut national de la recherche agronomique
France
Amots Hetzroni
Institute of Agricultural Engineering
Agricultural Research Organization
The Volcani Center
Rishon LeZion
Israel
Mohamud Hussein
Food and Environment Research Agency
Sand Hutton
York
N. Yorkshire
United Kingdom
Marko Ilić
Department of Biology
Biotechnical Faculty
University of Ljubljana
Slovenia
Nunzio Isidoro
Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences
Marche Polytechnic University
Italy
Josep A. Jaques
Universitat Jaume I
Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
Campus del Riu Sec
Spain
Mohamed Kamal Abbas
Agricultural Research Center
Plant Protection Research Institute
Department of Wood Borers and Termites
Egypt
Filitsa Karamaouna
Department of Pesticides' Control and Phytopharmacy
Benaki Phytopathological Institute
Athens
Greece
Dimitris Kontodimas
Department of Entomology & Agricultural Zoology
Benaki Phytopathological Institute
Athens
Greece
Alessandra La Pergola
Department of Agricultural, Food and Environment
Applied Entomology Section
University of Catania
Italy
Paolo Lo Bue
Department of Agricultural and Forest Sciences
University of Palermo
Italy
Alan MacLeod
Food and Environment Research Agency
Sand Hutton
York
N. Yorkshire
United Kingdom
Ourania Melita
Benaki Phytopathological Institute
Athens
Greece
Dana Ment
Department of Entomology
Agricultural Research Organization
The Volcani Center
Rishon LeZion
Israel
Panos Milonas
Department of Entomology & Agricultural Zoology
Benaki Phytopathological Institute
Greece
Roxana Luisa Minuz
Department of Agricultural
Food and Environmental Sciences
Marche Polytechnic University
Italy
Sandro Nardi
Servizio Fitosanitario Regionale
Agenzia Servizi Settore Agroalimentare delle Marche
Italy
Vicente Navarro Llopis
Universitat Politècnica de València
Center for Agricultural Chemical Ecology
Mediterranean Agroforestal Institute
Spain
Lola Ortega-García
Unidad Entomologia Agricola
Dpto. Ciencias y Recursos Agricolas y Forestales
Campus de Rabanales C4 2 planta
Spain
Stavros Papageorgiou
Bytelogic
Athens
Greece
Ezio Peri
Department of Agricultural and Forest Sciences
University of Palermo
Italy
Primož Pirih
Graduate University for Advanced Sciences
Sokendai
Kanagawa
Japan
Costas Pontikakos
Department of Agricultural Economy and Development
Informatics Laboratory
Agricultural University
Enrique Quesada Moraga
Unidad Entomologia Agricola
Dpto. Ciencias y Recursos Agricolas y Forestales
Campus de Rabanales C4 2 planta
Spain
Paola Riolo
Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences
Marche Polytechnic University
Italy
Didier Rochat
Sensory Ecology Department (UMR 1392)
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Sciences of Paris
France
Roberto Romani
Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences
University of Perugia
Italy
Sara Ruschioni
Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences
Marche Polytechnic University
Italy
Frosa Samiou
Directorate of Parks and Landscaping
Region of Attica
Athens
Greece
Victoria Soroker
Department of Entomology
Agricultural Research Organization
The Volcani Center
Rishon LeZion
Israel
Pompeo Suma
Department of Agricultural, Food and Environment
Applied Entomology Section
University of Catania
Italy
Elisabeth Tabone
INRA PACA Center, National Institut of Agriculture
UEFM, Entomology and Mediterranean Forest Unit
France
Sandra Vacas
Universitat Politècnica de València
Center for Agricultural Chemical Ecology
Mediterranean Agroforestal Institute
Spain
Elisa Verdolini
Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences
Marche Polytechnic University
Italy
Nomenclature
N1: Common palm names
Palm species of the most common palms in Southern Europe and the Mediterranean basin. Only the most important, either local or very common as ornamental, palm species are mentioned.
Palm common name
Scientific name
Canary palm
Phoenix canariensis
Date palm
Phoenix dactylifera
Cretan date palm
Phoenix theophrasti
Pygmy date palm
Phoenix roebelenii
European fan palm
Chamaerops humilis
Desert fan Palm
Washingtonia filifera
Mexican fan palm (or Mexican Washingtonia)
Washingtonia robusta
Chusan palm
Trachycarpus fortunei
Trachycarpus
Trachycarpus fortunei
“Wagnerianus”
Syagrus
(Queen palm or Cocos palm)
Syagrus romanzoffiana
Alexander palm
Archontophoenix alexandrae
Doum palm
Hyphaene thebaica
Kentia palm
Howea forsteriana
African oil palm
Elaeis guineensis
N2: Palm organs
Term
Definition
The crown
Crown
The cluster of leaves growing at the top of the stem forming the canopy
Meristem
The non-differentiated region of a plant where new cells and organs are developed
The palm “heart”
The central region of the crown including the apical meristem and the younger, developing leaves
Shoot apical meristem
The meristematic region at the central of the “palm heart.” All new organs (leaves and inflorescences) are generated by the shoot apical meristem
Term
Definition
The stem
Stem/stipe (trunk)
The main axis of the palm. Unlike the trunk of most dicot trees, it has a rather constant diameter. Its outer portion is composed of leaf sheets
Single stemmed palms/multi-stemmed (clustering)
Multi-stemmed palms are generated by branching of axillary meristems (buds) usually at the lower parts of the stem
Offshoot
A new shoot branched from the main stem, growing from an axillary bud
Vasculature, vascular bundles
Xylem (water-conducting tissue) and phloem (carbohydrate-conducting tissue) vascular bundles scattered throughout the central cylinder of the stem. They are interspersed within a matrix of parenchyma cells
Leaves (fronds)
Palmate leaf
Shaped like a fan or the palm of the hand. All leaflets or leaf segments arise from a central area
Pinnate leaf
Feather-like leaf, leaflets arising along a central axis (rachis)
Leaf sheath
The base of the leaf, where it is tubular and completely surrounds younger leaves. It can split after maturity
Leaf blade
The open, wide part of the leaf (in palm it includes the leaflets or the leaf sections)
Leaflet
A leaf-like part of a compound leaf. Divisions of pinnate (and sometime palmate) leaf blades
Spear leaf
The youngest, emerging, unopened palm leaf
Primordial leaves
Developing leaves before emergence. Develop within the “palm hearth”
Inflorescences
Axillary buds
Meristems located at the base of leaves. They can form offshoots (branching) at the juvenile stage and inflorescences once the palm has transitioned into a reproductive state
Inflorescence
A branch that bears flowers, including all its bracts and sub-branches
Bracts
A modified leaf associated with the inflorescence
Spathe
A large sheathing bract, covering the inflorescence. Botanically, depending on species, can be either the prophyll or the peduncular bract
Peduncle
The fruit stalk, the primary stalk, the lower unbranched part of an inflorescence
Petiole
The stalk of a leaf
Rachis
In a leaf: the axis of a leaf beyond the petiole; in an inflorescence: the axis beyond the peduncle
Rachilla
The inflorescence branches that bear the flowers (sometimes called spikelets)
The current list of terms is a compromise between botanical morphological terms and common terms used by farmers, gardeners and at nurseries.
Additional resources for palm terminology can be found at:
The Glossary of the European Network for Palm Scientists
(EUNOPS),
http://eunops.org/content/glossary-palm-terms
.
Dransfield, J., Uhl, N. W., Asmussen-Lange, C. B. et al. (2008).
Genera Palmarum: Evolution and classification of the palms
. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
N3: Semiochemicals
Chemical names
Common name
Biological Function
Comments
4-methyl-5-nonanol
Ferrugineol
Major component of RPW aggregation pheromone
The naturally produced compound is the (4S,5S)-ferrugineol
4-methyl-5-nonanone
Ferrugineone
Minor component of RPW aggregation pheromone
The naturally produced compound is the (4S)-ferrugineone
(2E,13Z)-octadecadien-1-ol
E2,Z13-18:OH
Major compound isolated from male PBM mid-tarsae
The chemical is assumed to be a male PBM pheromone
Introduction
Neil Audsley1, Victoria Soroker2 and Stefano Colazza3
1Fera Science Ltd, Sand Hutton, York, United Kingdom
2Department of Entomology, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Israel
3Department of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Palermo, Italy
Invasive Alien Species
The EU commission's definition of an invasive alien species is “an animal or plant that is introduced accidentally or deliberately into a natural environment where they are not normally found, with serious negative consequences for their new environment” (European Commission 2016). Alien species occur in all major taxonomic groups and are found in every type of habitat. The EU-funded project DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe) reported that over 12,000 alien species are present in Europe and 10–15% of them are considered invasive (DAISIE 2016). The globalization of travel and trade and the expansion of the human population have facilitated the movement of species, especially in Europe, where travel is unrestricted between most member states.
The ingress, establishment, and spread of alien pest species are of high importance because their impacts are wide ranging. As well as reducing yields from agriculture, horticulture, and forestry, they can cause the displacement or extinction of native species, cause habitat loss, affect biodiversity, disrupt ecosystem services, and pose a threat to animal and human health.
The risks posed to the EU region by non-native species are widely recognized and have led to legislation to combat their threat, the most recent of which (Regulation (EU) No. 1143/2014) came into force on January 1, 2015 (European Commission 2016). This regulation aims to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects of invasive alien species. It also supports preceding directives on invasive alien species (European Commission 2016). This directive highlights anticipated interventions to combat invasive alien species, including prevention, early warning, rapid response, and management. Despite this regulation, it can be assumed that the introduction of new invasive alien species into Europe will continue, and the spread of those species that have become established is likely to continue as well. Climate change may well make it easier for some species to become established in Europe, hence the risks posed by the invasive alien species are likely to increase.
Huge costs are associated with invasive species; in the USA, damage has been estimated at more than €100 billion a year, with insects contributing around 10% of this damage (Pimentel, Zuniga, and Morrison 2005). In Europe, damage exceeds €12 billion annually, but this is most likely an underestimate because, for many alien species in Europe, the potential economic and environmental impacts are still unknown (European Environment Agency 2012). It is clear that failure to deal with invasive species in a timely and efficient manner can be extremely costly. The DAISIE project has produced fact sheets of the worst 100 of these species (http://www.europe-aliens.org/speciesTheWorst.do), which include insects such as the Mediterranean fruit fly Ceratitis capitata and the Western corn rootworm Diabrotica virgifera, describing their economic, social, and environmental impacts.
Failure to detect and eradicate pest populations at some point prior to, during, or following transportation facilitates the introduction, spread, and establishment of invasive alien pests. This is exemplified by the establishment of the RPW and PBM in and around the Mediterranean basin.
R. ferrugineus and P. archon: Invasive Pests of Palm Trees
Palm trees in the Mediterranean basin and elsewhere are under serious threat from the RPW and PBM, two invasive species that were accidentally introduced through the import of infested palms. The larvae of both of these insects bore into palm trees and feed on the succulent plant material stem and/or leaves. The resulting damage remains invisible long after infestation, and by the time the first symptoms of the attack appear, they are so serious that, in the case of the RPW, they often result in the death of the tree (Ferry and Gómez 1998; Faleiro 2006; EPPO Reporting Service 2008a; Dembilio and Jaques 2015).
The PBM, native to South America, was first reported in Europe—in France and Spain—in 2001, but it is believed to have been introduced before 1995 on palms imported from Argentina. It has since spread to other EU member states (Italy, Greece, and Cyprus) with isolated reports in the UK, Bulgaria, Denmark, Slovenia, and Switzerland (Vassarmidaki, Thymakis, and Kontodimas 2006; EPPO Reporting Service 2008b, 2010; Larsen 2009; Vassiliou et al. 2009). Although P. archon has not been reported to be a significant pest in South America, with the exception of reports from Buenos Aires (Sarto i Monteys and Aguilar 2005), it has been the cause of serious damage and plant mortalities, mainly in ornamental palm nurseries, in France, Italy, and Spain (Riolo et al. 2004; Vassarmidaki Thymakis, and Kontodimas 2006). It may also increase the risk of RPW spread by creating primary damage to palms, which then attracts the weevil.
The RPW is native to southern Asia and Melanesia (Ferry and Gómez 1998; EPPO Reporting Service 2008a), but is now spreading worldwide. After becoming a major pest in the Middle Eastern region in the mid-1980s (Abraham, Koya, and Kurian 1989), it was introduced into Spain in the mid-1990s (Barranco, de la Peña, and Cabello, 1996) and rapidly spread around the Mediterranean basin to areas where susceptible palm trees are grown outdoors (EPPO Reporting Service 2008a and b). Its range now also includes much of Asia, regions of Oceania and North Africa, the Caribbean, and North America (EPPO Reporting Service 2008a–2009; Pest Alert 2010). Of the EU member states, Italy and Spain are the worst affected, accounting for around 90% of the total number of outbreaks reported, but the RPW is also prevalent in France (DRAAF-PACA 2010).
The high rate of spread of the RPW in Europe following its introduction is most likely due to a combination of factors that resulted in inadequate eradication and containment of this weevil. The lack of effective early-detection methods, the continued import of infested palms, and the transportation of palms and offshoots from contaminated to non-infested areas have had a major impact (Jacas 2010).
By 2007, the spread of the RPW had become uncontrollable, resulting in the adoption of emergency measures to prevent its further introduction and spread within the community (Commission decision 2007/365/EC 2007). These measures included restricted import and movement of susceptible palms and annual surveys for RPW. However, although the interceptions of infested material decreased, the procedures to prevent spread were not fully effective.
In 2010, new recommendations on methods for the control, containment, and eradication of RPW were made by a Commission Expert Working Group and at the International Conference on Red Palm Weevil Control Strategy for Europe, held in Valencia, Spain. They recognized that:
in most areas, eradication of RPW was unlikely to be achieved so containment would be more appropriate;
better enforcement of EU legislation for intra-community trade and imports from third countries was required to prevent the further spread of the RPW within EU member states;
there was a need for research and development of programs focused on the early detection, control, and eradication of RPW.
A successful program for RPW eradication was undertaken in the Canary Islands to protect the native Phoenix canariensis after this insect was detected in the resorts of Fuerteventura and Gran Canaria in 2005. This included a ban on the importation of any palms from outside the Islands and a program of work that included monitoring for the pest, inspection of palms and nurseries, accreditations for transplantation and movement of palms, elimination of infected palms, plant health treatments, and mass trapping, and an awareness campaign that included a website, talks, seminars, courses, newsletters, and leaflets. In 2007, an outbreak was reported on Tenerife, but since 2008 no additional weevils have been detected (Giblin-Davis 2013; Gobcan 2009).
The key aspects of protective measures against the RPW and PBM (and other invasive pests) are:
to rapidly and accurately detect these insects in imported palms, or palms being moved between different areas;
to rapidly detect new infested areas;
to take appropriate measures to eradicate the pests;
where eradication is unlikely, i.e. in areas where these pests are already established, take appropriate action to contain and control the pests within that area to prevent further spread within the community.
However, the threats posed by the RPW and PBM are now greater than ever because:
one or both of these pests is already present in almost all countries around the Mediterranean basin where susceptible palms are grown;
