Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Responses of Anastrepha suspensa, Diachasmimorpha longicaudata, and Sensitivity of Guava Production to Heterorhabditis bacteriophora in Fruit Fly Integrated Pest Management Cover

Responses of Anastrepha suspensa, Diachasmimorpha longicaudata, and Sensitivity of Guava Production to Heterorhabditis bacteriophora in Fruit Fly Integrated Pest Management

Open Access
|Oct 2018

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

The patterns of numbers of emerging (A) adult Caribfly and (B) parasitoid wasps (Diachasmimorpha longicaudata) observed in EPN treatments, with increasing IJ rate of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora applied over two Caribfly-infested guavas in the field. Tukey’s HSD tests at P ⩽ 0.05: same letter on top of bars (± standard errors) denotes no significant differences, even though numerical margins were observed, in accumulated densities of emerging adult Caribfly or the parasitoid wasps between application rates of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora.
The patterns of numbers of emerging (A) adult Caribfly and (B) parasitoid wasps (Diachasmimorpha longicaudata) observed in EPN treatments, with increasing IJ rate of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora applied over two Caribfly-infested guavas in the field. Tukey’s HSD tests at P ⩽ 0.05: same letter on top of bars (± standard errors) denotes no significant differences, even though numerical margins were observed, in accumulated densities of emerging adult Caribfly or the parasitoid wasps between application rates of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora.

Figure 2.

Relationship between relative survival of Caribfly and increasing IJ rate of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora used to treat two infested guavas plot−1 in field trials from June to August 2017. The coefficient of determination and the probability statistic for significance level are R
2 and P, respectively.
Relationship between relative survival of Caribfly and increasing IJ rate of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora used to treat two infested guavas plot−1 in field trials from June to August 2017. The coefficient of determination and the probability statistic for significance level are R 2 and P, respectively.

Figure 3.

Linear relationship between cumulative densities of emerging adult Caribfly and those of the surviving parasitoid wasps, Diachasmimorpha longicaudata. The coefficient of determination is R
2 whereas P is the probability statistic for significance level.
Linear relationship between cumulative densities of emerging adult Caribfly and those of the surviving parasitoid wasps, Diachasmimorpha longicaudata. The coefficient of determination is R 2 whereas P is the probability statistic for significance level.

Figure 4.

Relationship between probability of observing large numbers of the parasitoid Diachasmimorpha longicaudata and the increasing IJ rate from 0 to 100 IJs cm−2, following EPN-augmentation of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora over two guavas in field trials from June to August 2017. The coefficient of determination is R
2, whereas the probability statistic for significance level is P.
Relationship between probability of observing large numbers of the parasitoid Diachasmimorpha longicaudata and the increasing IJ rate from 0 to 100 IJs cm−2, following EPN-augmentation of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora over two guavas in field trials from June to August 2017. The coefficient of determination is R 2, whereas the probability statistic for significance level is P.

Cost estimates for the possible EPN-augmentation approaches in guava orchards to achieve maximum suppression of Caribfly at the best IJ ratea_

Strategic EPN-augmentation optionIn series, number of fruit tree−1 on the groundTotal number of fruit on the ground in 1 hectareb Required IJs ha−1 of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora Estimated cost of total number of IJs (US$ ha−1)
Hectare-wide EPN-augmentation or broadcasting at ‘(50 IJs cm−2 spread over a fruit in 350 cm2)’ seems to be less cost-effectivenana5 × 109 970c
Applying Heterorhabditis bacteriophora IJs over each infested fruit on soil surface at 17,500 IJs fruit−1 seems to be more economical⩽1⩽5008,750,0001.70
21,00017,500,0003.40
31,50026,250,0005.10
42,00035,000,0006.79
5e 2,50043,750,0008.49
63,00052,500,00010.19
73,50061,250,00011.88
84,00070,000,00013.58
94,50078,750,00015.28
105,00087,500,00016.98
The average costs of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora IJs ha−1 in each month9.34d

Cost-benefit analysis showing changing annual base net income level in response to varying total costs following inclusion of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora in Caribfly IPM plans to suppress Caribfly (Anastrepha suspensa) better in south Florida guava orchards_

Methods to include Heterorhabditis bacteriophora in Caribfly IPM
Before inclusion of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora in IPMSpot treatment techniqueHectare-wide broadcasting
DetailsUS$ ha−1 US$ ha−1 US$ ha−1
1. Production costsa
Irrigation494494494
Fertilizers1,3591,3591,359
Insecticides1,1121,1121,112
Herbicides1,1121,1121,112
Fungicides988988988
Heterorhabditis bacteriophora (in Table 1)02674,850
Labor (pruning; supervision; others)1,6061,6061,606
Interest on capital (5%)334347576
2. Fixed costs
Cash overhead:
Insurance247247247
Taxes247247247
Non-cash overhead:
Land rent1,2361,2361,236
Other overhead1,4831,4831,483
3. Harvesting and marketing costs
Picking and sales cost6,9196,9196,919
4. Total costs17,13717,41722,229
5. Returns on ‘wholesale base yield’
Annual wholesale base revenueb, c 39,53739,53739,537
Annual base net incomed 22,40022,12017,308
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2018-039 | Journal eISSN: 2640-396X | Journal ISSN: 0022-300X
Language: English
Page range: 261 - 272
Published on: Oct 17, 2018
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2018 William K. Heve, Fahiem E. El-Borai, Evan G. Johnson, Daniel Carrillo, William T. Crow, Larry W. Duncan, published by Society of Nematologists, Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.