
Mealybugs cause mechanical damage and diseases to plants. Through their feeding activities, they reduce the yield, quality and productivity of crops. This review discusses mealybug vectors of plant viruses, the economic losses they cause, mealybug species and their hosts. Among the numerous mealybug species, Planococcus species are the most effective vector of plant viruses, transmitting many Ampeloviruses. Diverse methods for the control and regulation of mealybugs are also discussed. Physical, cultural and biological control methods are labor-intensive but environmentally friendly compared to chemical methods. However, chlorpyrifos are one the active ingredients of insecticides effective against several mealybug species. Using plant products such as neem oil as a biocontrol method has been effective, similar to other insecticides. Notwithstanding, the biological method of controlling mealybugs is effectively slow but safe and highly recommended. The Anagyrus species have the highest success rate amongst other natural parasites of mealybugs. Also, farm sanitation and pruning as cultural methods help reduce mealybug populations.
Citation: Abdul Razak Ahmed, Samuel Obeng Apori, Abdul Aziz Karim. Mealybug vectors: A review of their transmission of plant viruses and their management strategies[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(3): 736-761. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023040
[1] | Nelson Mpumi, Revocatus L. Machunda, Kelvin M. Mtei, Patrick A. Ndakidemi . Insecticidal Efficacy of Syzygium aromaticum, Tephrosia vogelii and Croton dichogamus Extracts against Plutella xylostella and Trichoplusia ni on Brassica oleracea crop in Northern Tanzania. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1): 185-202. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021012 |
[2] | María Cámara-Ruiz, José María García Beltrán, Francisco Antonio Guardiola, María Ángeles Esteban . In vitro and in vivo effects of purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) on gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata L.). AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(4): 799-824. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.4.799 |
[3] | Oksana B. Polivanova, Mikhail Yu. Cherednichenko, Elena A. Kalashnikova, Rima N. Kirakosyan . In vitro antibacterial effect of silver nanoparticles synthetized using Agastache foeniculum plant and callus extracts. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(2): 631-643. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021037 |
[4] | Johan Sukweenadhi, Eloqui Viectorica Wiranata, Ida Bagus Made Artadana, Kang-Se Chang . Isolation and in vitro screening of plant growth promoting bacteria from rhizosphere and root tissues of potato tuber (Solanum tuberosum L.). AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(4): 1028-1037. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023055 |
[5] | Talita Loureiro, Berta Gonçalves, Luís Serra, Ângela Martins, Isabel Cortez, Patrícia Poeta . Histological analysis of Xylella fastidiosa infection in Quercus pyrenaica in Northern Portugal. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(2): 607-627. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024033 |
[6] | Gregorio Gullo, Antonio Dattola, Vincenzo Vonella, Rocco Zappia . Performance of the Brasiliano 92 orange cultivar with six trifoliate rootstocks. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1): 203-215. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021013 |
[7] | Mohamed-Yousif Ibrahim Mohamed, Ihab Habib . Listeria monocytogenes in food products, and its virulence in North Africa. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2025, 10(1): 97-128. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2025006 |
[8] | Sonia Maria Lima Santos do Vale, Amauri Siviero, Lauro Saraiva Lessa, Eduardo Pacca Luna Mattar, Paulo Arthur Almeida do Vale . Biotechnological potential of endophytic bacteria of bamboo Guadua sp. for promotion of growth of micropropagated yam plants (Dioscorea rotundata Poir). AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(4): 850-867. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.4.850 |
[9] | Yenni, Mohd Hafiz Ibrahim, Rosimah Nulit, Siti Zaharah Sakimin . Influence of drought stress on growth, biochemical changes and leaf gas exchange of strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) in Indonesia. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2022, 7(1): 37-60. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022003 |
[10] | Heru Irianto, Mujiyo Mujiyo, Aulia Qonita, Ato Sulistyo, Erlyna Wida Riptanti . The development of jarak towo cassava as a high economical raw material in sustainability-based food processing industry. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1): 125-141. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021008 |
Mealybugs cause mechanical damage and diseases to plants. Through their feeding activities, they reduce the yield, quality and productivity of crops. This review discusses mealybug vectors of plant viruses, the economic losses they cause, mealybug species and their hosts. Among the numerous mealybug species, Planococcus species are the most effective vector of plant viruses, transmitting many Ampeloviruses. Diverse methods for the control and regulation of mealybugs are also discussed. Physical, cultural and biological control methods are labor-intensive but environmentally friendly compared to chemical methods. However, chlorpyrifos are one the active ingredients of insecticides effective against several mealybug species. Using plant products such as neem oil as a biocontrol method has been effective, similar to other insecticides. Notwithstanding, the biological method of controlling mealybugs is effectively slow but safe and highly recommended. The Anagyrus species have the highest success rate amongst other natural parasites of mealybugs. Also, farm sanitation and pruning as cultural methods help reduce mealybug populations.
The world's population is growing so fast that at the end of 2021 it was 7.9 billion people [1]. This is a rapid growth rate compared to ten years ago (6.194 billion) [2]. With this growth rate, it is estimated that the world population will be around 9,782,061,758 in 2051 [3].
This exponential growth trend has an adverse impact on food security. To meet the dietary requirements for this population growth, food production needs to be scaled up. Among the various food sources, plants are the largest food source for humans. A total of 50–90% of the human diet is of plant origin [4]. However, these contributions of plant products to the human diet are likely to diminish due to several factors. The decrease in agricultural land use size, plant diseases and other biotic factors threaten plant productivity. Among these factors, plant pathogenic diseases are the major problem, where 16% of annual plant yield losses are due to plant pathogenic diseases [5].
Plant pathogens contributes a troubling decline in global food security and crop production [6]. Plant pathogens are transmitted through a variety of vectors. Insects and nematodes [7] play a role in pathogen transmission. Insects, the most popular and effective of all the vectors, pose a concern for plants, animals and human health [8].
Two orders of insects (Hemipterans and Thysanopteras) have the most devastating effect on crop yield [9]. Among the various orders of insects, Hemipteran [10], Coleopteras [11], Thysanoptera (generally thrips) [12,13,14,15], Lepidoptera [16] and Diptera [17,18] are known vectors of plant viruses, fungi and bacteria. Close to one-fourth of all plant viruses require insect vectors for effective transmission [9]. Coleopterans are effective transmitters of Bromoviruses, Carmoviruses, Comoviruses, Machlomoviruses, Sobemoviruses and Tymoviruses [19]. Hemipterans (aphids, whiteflies and leafhoppers), transmit most plant viruses and bacteria. They are infamous for the transmission of more than one pathogen. Furthermore, their brisk reproductive cycles and diverse plant hosts give them an advantage in plant virus transmission [20,21]. Although thrips, aphids and whiteflies account for over 50% of plant virus transmission [22,23], the role of mealybugs in plant viruses transmission is noteworthy. Of the Homoptera insect order, mealybugs are one of the major vectors of plant viruses [24]. With various biotic problems of plants, viral diseases are one of the biggest constraints to plant health [25]. Transmission of plant viruses is dependent on the mealybug life stage, temperature and suitable host. However, information about the viruses transmitted by mealybugs is not comprehensive as that of aphids, whiteflies and thrips. This article provides a comprehensive review of the different types of plant viruses transmitted by different species of mealybugs, and various management strategies to reduce and control the devastating effects of mealybugs.
Mealybugs (Pseudococcidae) are destructive insect pests of crop plants. Mealybugs are either monophagous [26] or polyphagous. Mealybugs perfectly homogenize with their host plant, thanks to the wax produced by the host plant, which covers them and offers them camouflage. It is estimated that 149 mealybug species feed on plants with their piercing and sucking feeding behavior. The Planococcus species are the most common and destructive [27], causing severe mechanical damages to crop plants. Despite having a diverse feeding host, woody and herbaceousplants are most preferred. They pierce and suck the plant sap, which causes sooty mold from releasing sap materials, reduces the plant chlorophyll content and thus affect photosynthesis [28,29,30]. During feeding, viral particles (especially those retained in the stylet and foregut) are released through their stylet [31]. The stylets are withdrawn into the body after and when not feeding [32].
Mealybugs are approximately 5mm long [33], with adult females 3-5mm and males average 3mm long [34,35]. Adult females retain some nymph-like features attributable to incomplete metamorphosis and are wingless. Similarly, male adults also undergo incomplete metamorphosis, but they are much smaller than the females and possess wings that aid them in moving to female mealybugs for mating [26,33,36].
The lifecycles of mealybugs differ according to their sex and species [37]. Male and female mealybugs have the same life cycle from the egg stage to the 2nd instar stage. In males, the prepupa stage is the next stage after the 2nd instar stage, then follows the Pupa, and finally to the adult male stage. However, unlike the male, the female mealybug has a 3rd instar stage that ends at the adult stage [38], as observed in Figure 1a and b below.
As observed from Figure 1a and b, male and female mealybugs have similar life cycles. However, certain mealybug species may require additional stages. The male pineapple mealybug (Dysmicoccus brevipes Cockerell), longtailed mealybug (Pseudococcus longispinus) were confirmed to have a third Instar stage between the second instar and prepupa stage [37,39]. Also, the female pineapple mealybug had a crawler stage instead of the first instar stage. Daane et al. (2008) also reported a similar life cycle of Planococcusficus to that of Dysmicoccus brevipes.
Different species of mealybugs are found on plants in greenhouses, nurseries, plants and landscapes. Over the world, approximately 246 of several plant families serve as hosts for almost 5000 species of mealybugs [41]. Poaceae are the most popular host plants (585 species) for mealybugs, with Cyperaceae having the least number of host plants (75 species), and [42,43,44] emphasized that mealybugs feed on nearly 149 plant species, through the sucking of plant sap which causes leaves to distort and fall.. Destruction and pathogen transmission by mealybugs have been reported on guava, citrus, pomegranate, grapes, sugarcane, banana, black pepper, pineapple plantain, stone fruit, berries, yam, cassava, cashew, papaya, pawpaw and cocoa [31,42,45,46,47,48,49,50].
Weeds such as Amaranthus vividus, Bidens Pilosa, Sonchus oleraceus, Chenopodus ambrosoides, Commelina sp., Cucumis anguria, Momordica charantia, Cyperus rotundus, Chamaesyce hirta, Croton sonderianus, Jatropha urens, Mimosa pudica, Piptadenia moniliformis, Serra macranthera, Herissanthia crispa, Sida cordifolia, Sida galheirensis, Sida rhombifolia, Sidastrum micranthum, Sidastrum sp., Digitaria horizontalis, Talinum paniculatum, Watheria douradinha, Malva sylvestris L., Redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retriflexus L., Crimson clover, Trifolium incarnatum L., Toadflax, Linaria sp. and Chorizococcus rostellum also serve as host plants for mealybugs [51,52]. Various degrees of mealybug infestation have been reported in Kenya [53], Nigeria [54], Ghana [48,50,55,56], Indonesia [57], New Zealand [58], India [57,59,60,61] and Israel [26]. In Turkey, 25 weed species from 14 plant families were found to host 5 mealybug species [51].
Several studies have confirmed the economic losses caused by the destructive effects of mealybugs and the virus diseases they transmit. According to Asare Bediako et al. [50], the mealybug wilt of pineapple (MWP) causes approximately US $248/ha in losses to pineapple fruit yield in Ghana, while causing 30–50 % of fruit yield loss in Hawai in the United States, depending on the age of the plant. Three cassava mealybugs (Phenacoccus manihoti, Planococcus herreni and Planococcus spp.) have been reported to cause cassava yield reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa. Phenacoccus manihoti is estimated to cause an 80% reduction in cassava yield [62]. Similarly, the Hibiscus mealybug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus) is indicated to cause a US $75 million loss annually in the United States of America [26]. Prabhakar et al.[30] reported various economic losses in several countries due to cotton mealybug (Phenacoccus solenopsis), Papaya mealybug (Paracoccus marginatus) and several mealybugs on cotton plant yields. Previous studies show that green coloration occurs in situations where both the male and female mealybug are found (especially between Dysmicoccus brevipes and Dysmicoccus neobrevipes) but are absent in a situation where only one parent was found (either male or the female) [63]. This green colouration affects the quality and market value of the produce. It is worth noting that the direct effect of viruses transmitted by mealy bugs is difficult to estimate since other factors in combination with the virus diseases cause economic damages to the crops. In a review by Franco et al. [64], Planoccocus citri and other species of mealybug cause economic losses in citrus orchards in the Mediteranean regions.
Compared to aphids and whiteflies, mealybugs are transmitters of a few genera of plant viruses. Due to their less mobile nature, they are less effective in transmitting plant viruses than aphids, leafhoppers and other insect vectors. In addition, the sex and age of mealybugs affect virus transmission rates. For example, old female mealybugs are less efficient in transmitting plant viruses [83]. Also, the life stages of the nymph affect their transmission rate of viruses (adults are more effective than nymphs) [19].
Mealybugs transmit viruses of the genus Ampelovirus [31,63], and some Closteroviruses [84], of the Closteroviridae family. Mealybugs also transmit badnavirus [47,85] of the Caulimoviridae family. Closteroviridae generally consists of four genera- Closterovirus, Ampelovirus and Crinivirus, Velarivirus [86,87]. Some studies have also confirmed the transmission of vitiviruses by some mealybug species [83]. These viruses trigger leaf discoloration, deformation, mottling and leaf yellowing.
Based on the organization of the positive-strand RNA genomes, Ampeloviruses can be subdivided into different groups [87]. Ampeloviruses have a non-enveloped capsid, 1400–2200 nm long virion, 13.0–18.5 kb segmented genome [86] and filamentous shape. The genome of Ampelo-like air potato virus 1 (AiPoV1) is estimated to be around 13,398 nucleotides [88]. Mealybugs are the main vectors of Ampeloviruses. In a semi-persistent manner, mealybugs transmit Ampelovirus and other viruses in the Ampelovirus genus in a semi-persistent mode (GLRaV 3) [31,89]. In semi-persistent (foregut-borne) virus transmission, viruses are spread from the stylet of the insect up to the foregut. The virus does not spread beyond the foregut of the insect vector. Within 20 minute-period, the mealybug picks up the virus and infects the host [90]. The virus does not reproduce and multiply in the vector, and retention of the virus in the host spans from hours to days [9]. Studies indicate that semi-persistent viruses influence the feeding behavior of their host [91]. The injuries caused by their stylets during feeding, triggers plant defense response [62]. During feeding, the saliva of some mealybug species, especially Maconellicoccus hirsutus, causes harmful effects to plants [92]. Ampeloviruses cause vascular diseases with obscure symptoms. However, studies show that Ampelovirus, when combined with other viruses, causes mixed infection in plants [88]. Most Ampeloviruses are transmitted by Dysmicoccus brevipes (Pseudococcus brevipes), Dysmicoccus neobrevipes [63] and Pseudococcus longispinus.
From Table 1, Planoccocus mealybug species are more active in transmitting plant Ampeloviruses. Planococcus ficus is a regular transmitter of five strains of Grapevine leafroll associated viruses [93]. These can cause mixed infections since the mealybugs are vectors of numerous viruses [88] as observed in Table 2. According to a study by Sether et al. [94], Pineapple mealybug-associated wilt viruses, when associated with pineapple's Mealybug wilt virus, resulted in 100% yield loss. Also, mealybugs acquire and transmit viruses with or without association with other viruses. For example, mealybugs (Dysmicoccus brevipes and Dysmicoccus neobrevipes) were found to transmit Pineapple Mealybug-associated virus-3 (PmaV-3) without the transmission of PmaV-1 [94], although they are vectors of these two viruses [95]. It is worth noting that some other insect species do actively transmit Ampeloviruses. For example, Parthenolecanium corni (Coccidae) was reported to transmit GLRaV-3 [96].
Species of Mealybugs | Common Names | Host Plants | References |
Pseudococcus longispinus | Longtailed mealybug | Citrus, grapes, nursery stock, indoor ornamentals, citrus, taro, avocado, guava, eggplant. | [34,35,65] |
Pseudococcus maritimus | Grape mealybug | Grapes, Pears, Pomegranate other fruit trees, apricots | [34,35,66] |
Planococcus citri (cryptus) | Citrus mealybug | Citrus, landscape shrubs | [34,35,51] |
Planococcus ficus | Vine mealybug | Grapes, fruits, ornamental plants | [34,35,40,67] |
Rastrococcus iceryoides and R. invadens | Mango Mealybug | Mango and Citrus | [35,68] |
Dysmicoccus brevipes | Pineapple mealybug | Pineapple, avocado, banana, celery, citrus, clover, cocoa, coconut, coffee, custard apple, figs, ginger, guava, maize, mango, oil palm, orchids, groundnut, peppers, plantain, potato and sugarcane. | [26,35,69,70] |
Planococcus kenyae | Kenya mealybug | Coffee, yam, pigeon pea, passion fruit, sugarcane and sweet potato | [27,71] |
Saccharicoccus sacchari | Sugarcane mealybug | sorghum, rice and some grasses, sugarcane | [26,72] |
Ferrisia virgata | Striped mealybug | Common on most crops | [26,34] |
Ferrisia gilli | Gill's mealybug | Pistachios | [73] |
Heliococcus bohemicus | Bohemian mealybug | Grapevine | [74] |
Phenacoccus aceris | Apple mealybug | Grapevine, apple | [74] |
Planococcus solani Ferris Phenococcus solenopsis Tinsley | Solanum mealybug | Solanaceous crops | [34,35] |
Maconellicoccus hirsutus | Pink hibiscus mealybug | Hibiscus | [35,75] |
Paracoccus marginatus | Papaya mealybug | Papaya, Solanaceous crops, cotton, pomegranate, pea, sweet potato. | [30,53,76] |
Nipaecoccus viridis | Spherical mealybug | Cotton | [77] |
Planococcus kraunhiae | Japanese mealybug | Broad bean | [26,78] |
Planococcus minor | Passionvine mealybug | Vine | [79] |
Planococcus njalensis | Cocoa mealybug | Cocoa | [54] |
Pseudococcus viburni | Tuber mealybug | Donkey lettuce, Whitestem filaree, Tubular flower, Spanish needle, Hairy fleabane, grapes, persimmon | [80,81,82] |
Virus species | Mealybug vectors | Hosts | References |
Air potato ampelovirus (AiPoV 1) | Planococcus spp. | Air potato | [88] |
Blackberry Vein banding associated virus | Planococcus spp. | Blackberry | [97,98] |
Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 1 | Planococcus ficus, Pseudococcus longispinus, Phenacoccus aceris, Heliococcus bohemicus | Grapevine | [19,74,99] |
Grapevine Leafroll -associated virus 3 | Planococcus ficus, Pseudococcus. longispinus, Ferrisia gilli, Phenacoccus aceris, Pseudococcus calceolariae, Heliococcus bohemicus, Pseudococcus maritimus | Grapevine | [19,74,96,99,100,101,102] |
Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 4 | Planococcus ficus, Pseudococcus longispinus, Phenacoccus aceris | Grapevine | [19,101,103] |
Grapevine leafroll associated virus 13 | Planococcus ficus, Pseudococcus longispinus | Grapevine | [19,95] |
Pineapple mealybug associated viruses 1 and 3 | Dysmicoccus brevipes, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes | Pineapple | [19,104] |
Pineapple mealybug associated virus 2 | Dysmicoccus brevipes, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes | Pineapple | [19,50,63,98] |
Pistachio ampelovirus | Planococcus ficus | Pistachio | [105,106] |
Fig leaf mottle associated viruses 1 and 2 | Ceroplastes spp. | Fig | [107,108] |
Manihot esculenta virus 1 | Phenacoccus manihoti, Phenacoccus herreni | Cassava | [62] |
The genus Closterovirus belongs to the family Closteroviridae. Closteroviruses have two huge gene modules: one for genome replication, and the other for genome packaging and transport within the cells. The genome of Closterovirus is linear, positive RNA, with a maximum size of 19.3 kb [109].
In comparison to Ampeloviruses, fewer Closteroviruses are transmitted by mealybug vector species. For example, the Little cherry virus 2 belonging to the closterovirus genera is transmitted by Phenacoccus aceris [83,110].
The genus Badnavirus belongs to the Caulimoviridae family. Viruses found in Caulimoviridae have semicircular double-stranded DNA. They have a genome length range of 7.2–9.2 kbp. Eight divisions (Badnavirus, Caulimovirus, Cavemovirus, Petuvirus, Rosadnavirus, Solendovirus, Soymovirus and Tungrovirus) are members of the Caulimoviridae family based on host range, insect vector and the basis of genome organization [111]. Badnaviruses affect monocots and dicots. Most Badnaviruses are horizontally transmitted through mealybugs and aphids [111,112]. Fewer or no symptom is associated with Badnavirus infections [113]. The effectiveness of their transmission is dependent on the species of mealybugs. Badnavirus often have more than one species of the same vector as transmitters (Table 3). For example, 14 established vectors of Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus [114], of which Planoccoides njalensis, Planococcus citri, Ferrissia virgata are potent transmitters of the Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus [115]. Mealybugs usually feed on the flowers and pods. Like Ampelovirus, Badnaviruses are transmitted by mealybugs in a semi-persistent manner [115].
Virus Species | Mealybug vectors | Hosts | Reference |
Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus | Planoccoides njalensis, Planococcus citri, Ferrissia virgata | Cacao | [114,115] |
Banana Streak Virus | Planoccocus citri Risso, Saccharicoccus sacchari, Dysmicoccus brevipes, Ferrisia virgata | Banana | [69,83] |
Citrus Yellow Mosaic Badnavirus | Planococcus citri | Citrus | [33] |
Sugarcane bacilliform virus | Saccharicoccus sacchari | Sugarcane | (Sastry, 2013) |
Piper yellow mottle virus | Ferrisia virgata, Planococcus citri, Pseudococcus elisae, | Black pepper | [19,83] |
Sugarcane mild mosaic virus | Saccharicoccus sacchari | Sugarcane | [19] |
Taro bacilliform badnavirus | Pseudococcus solomonensis | Taro | [83] |
Schefflera ringspot virus | Planococcus citri | Schefflera | [83] |
Dioscorea bacilliform RT virus | Planococcus spp | Yam | [116] |
Vitiviruses belong to the family Flexiviridae and they are flexuous, filamentous, 12–13 in diameter [117] and 725–825 nm in length [118]. They are monopartite, positive sense and single-stranded. Vitiviruses were initially considered Trichoviruses, but the differences in their genome organizations provided a basis for their differentiation [119]. Their virions contain RNA genome in a tail-like structure facilitating their transmission to plants by their insect vector [117].
Vitiviruses are transmitted by mealybugs and other insect genera (Pseudococcus, Planococcus, Phenacoccus, Heliococcus, Neopulvinaria, Parthenolecanium, Cavariella and Ovatus)(Table 4)in a semipersistent manner [83].
Plant virus | Mealybug vector | Hosts | References |
Grapevine virus A (Kober Stem Grooving) | Pseudococcus spp, Planococcus ficus | Grapevine | [31,82,83] |
Grapevine virus B (Corky bark disease) | Planococcus ficus | Grapevine | [31,82,83] |
Grapevine Virus D | Phenacoccus spp | Grapevine | [83] |
Grapevine Virus E | Heliococcus spp | Grapevine | [31,83] |
Recent technological advances have influenced the methods and dynamics of controlling and managing mealybugs. Feeding behaviors determine the control strategy. The common management strategies are physical, chemical, cultural and biological. Environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity and others are considered when designing pest management strategies.
The physical (mechanical) pest control method involves using hurdle to reduce the contact between the pest and the crop. Physical control eliminates the pest or triggers behavioral or feeding changes in the pest [125].
Most physical methods share some similarities in their pest-elimination strategies. Despite their effectiveness, they are time-consuming and labor-intensive. Hand-picking of mealybugs, and cutting off tree parts heavily infested by mealybugs control mealybugs [34,35,115]. Growing barrier crops and destroying wild mealybug host plants have reduced contact between the mealybug vector and the host plant. Ameyaw et al.[115] reported on using citrus and oil palm in cocoa farms as barrier crops since they are not appropriate hosts for the mealybug vectors of Cocoa Swollen shoot virus. These crops break the mealybug vectors cycle since they are unsuitable hosts.
Results from studies performed by Franco et al.(2004) on pheromone traps to control Planococcus citri and Pseudococcus cryptus male mealybugs indicated that male mealybugs of the Planococcus citri population was significantly reduced. Also, trapping and eliminating mealybugs have proven to be a population regulator of mealybugs. Sticky plate traps help regulate some mealybugs species, especially Planococcus citri [26]. Similarly, the pheromone of some mealybug species can be manipulated to attract predators or natural enemies to them (as in the case of Anagyrus pseudococci in the control of Planococcus ficus) [26]. Also, the use of biological barriers, heat treatment amongst others are suitable in the control of mealybug species as seen in Table 5.
Mealybug Species | Physical Method | Key findings | Reference |
Dysmicoccus brevipes, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes | Ant barriers | Red ants were controlled causing the decrease in pink pineapple mealybug transportation | [120] |
Planoccocus njalensis | Crop barriers, Barrier cropping | Farms with barrier crops had low mealybug infestation cases in comparison to those with none | [115,121] |
Drosica mangiferae | Crop rotation | Adequate control of mango mealybug | [122] |
Planococcus ficus | 51–53 ℃ hot water treatment of grape cuttings | Eradication of more than half of Planococcus ficus population | [123] |
Planococcus ficus | Ultralow oxygen treatment | Complete eradication of all life stages of Planococcus ficus | [82] |
Dysmicoccus brevipes, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes | 50 ℃-30 minutes hot water treatment of pineapple propagules | Most of the mealybug population were destroyed | [124] |
Planococcus citri Rossi, Pseudococcus odematti Miller and Williams | Hot water immersion of propagules | 90–95% of the mealybug population were eliminated | [123] |
Like other pest control methods, cultural methods are diverse. They are environmentally friendly but labor-intensive. The cultural method involves a combination of practices that reduces the population and interrupt the infection cycle of pests. They include crop rotation, sanitation practices [34,35] and humidity control on the farm (Table 6).
Mealybug species | Cultural method | Key findings | References |
Planococcus ficus | resistant rootstocks (IAC 572, 10-17A, RS-3) | Resistant rootstocks were more resistant to Planococcus ficus infested as compared to other rootstocks | [82,123,126] |
Planococcus ficus | Low soil nitrogen content | Grape plants on low nitrogen level soil had low mealybug presence in comparison to other grape plants on soils with high nitrogen content | [82] |
Formicoccus njalensis, Planococcus citri | Breeding resistant varieties | Mealybug infestation was less in comparison to non-resistant varieties | [121] |
Sachharicoccus sacchari | Resistant varieties (Giza 96/74, Ph 8013) | Self-peeling varieties were less infected by the Saccharicoccus mealybug as compared to other varieties | [127,128] |
Planococcus njalensis | Roguing and pruning | Cocoa crops with pruned diseased parts had less mealybug infestation as compared to those not pruned | [121] |
Saccharicoccus sacchari | Flood irrigation, burning of dry leaves in the field | Number of mealybug infestation per plant was reduced | [128] |
Saccharicoccus sacchari | Low nitrogen fertilizer application, roguing, farm sanitation | Mealybug population was lower in farms where these practices were enforced | [128] |
Saccharicoccus sacchari | Drip irrigation | Increased drip irrigation method significantly reduced Saccharicoccus sacchari population | [128] |
Some crops have a genetic combination that helps them rejuvenate and regenerate after heavy mealybug feeding. AR23 (cassava genotype), an improved variety of cassava, was found to develop new leaves and rejuvenate into a healthy plant after severe damage was caused by the cassava mealybug [62]. Inter-Upper Amazon Hybrids of cocoa also have resistivity against heavy mealybug infestation [90]. However, there is innate resistance in some plants against some species of mealybugs. For example, different citrus varieties are reported to show varying levels of susceptibility to the citrus mealybug [79]. This underlines mealybug species preferences for special kinds of plants over others.
In addition, regular pruning of trees in and around the farm is encouraged. Mealybugs develop and multiply rapidly in a warm and humid environment [83]. Pruning trees deprives mealybugs of the necessary moist conditions. Thus, it exposes them to harsh weather conditions, such as sunlight that will slow or stop their rapid growth and gradual extinction.
Sanitation practices on the farm should be considered. The destruction of old and new heavily infested plant propagules should be practiced. In addition, farm equipment should be sanitized to reduce the transport of mealybug eggs within the farm. The destruction of cocoa trees affected by the Cocoa swollen Shoot Virus reduced the spread of the plant virus to healthy cocoa plants [90].
Also, fertilizers and irrigation within the farm should be regulated. Studies have demonstrated a relationship between wet soils coupled with high nitrogen content and mealybug growth [92]. There is a significant multiplication of mealybugs in the farm if the soil has high water content with significantly higher nitrogen levels. Daane et al. [40] confirmed the increase in the Planococcus ficus population due to increased nitrogen fertilizer use. Soils with high moisture content and adequate nitrogen levels help regenerate new plant parts. The mealybug then has new and succulent plant parts to feed on, and reproduction is encouraged. Adversely, Rae et al. [72] observed an increase in the Saccharicoccus sacchari at 320mg/L of nitrogen, but their population declined at a relatively higher nitrogen concentration.
Biological pest control methods use natural enemies to eliminate or reduce the population of pests. Biological control methods, although labor-intensive, are environmentally friendly. Recently, biological pest control methods have been gaining popularity. Several natural parasitoids of mealybugs have been enacted, but only a few have proven very effective. Aphelinidae and Platygasterida species have yielded appreciable results [26]. Natural enemies of mealybugs are numerous e.g. parasitic wasps, ladybird beetles, hoverflies, lacewings [35], etc. This wasp lays its eggs on the maturing mealybugs, killing these mealybugs and feeding on them. Gyranusoidea, Coccophagus, Leptomastix, Allotropa, Pseudaphycus and Acerophagus are reported to be parasitic wasps of mealybugs [26,129]. In Africa and South America, Apoanagyrus lopezi and Epidicarno lopezi are reported to be effective in regulating the Cassava mealybug (Phenaccocus manihoti) [35,62]. Gyranusoidea tebygi and Anagyrus mangicola are natural enemies of the mango mealybugs, Rastrococcus invadens and Rastrococcus iceryoides [34,35]. In addition, the population of citrus mealybug is reported to be reduced by natural parasites, such as Leptomastidea abnormis (Girault), Leptomastix dactylopii Howard, Chrysoplatycerus splendens Howard and Anagyrus pseudococci (Girault). However, parasitic fungus, such as Entomophthora fumosa and other natural parasites (brown lacewing, Sympherobius barberi (Banks) and green lacewing, Chrysopa lateralis Guérin, trash bugs, syrphid fly larvae and scale-eating caterpillars, Laetitia coccidivor, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant, Decadiomus bahamicus (Casey) Scymnus flavifrons Melsheimer, Chilocorus stigma (Say) and Olla abdominalis var. plagiata (Say), are reportedly effective against some species of mealybug [130].
The mode of action by which these parasitoids and predators suppress and eliminate different species of mealybugs differs. For example, Epidicarnosis lopezi, a parasitoid of cassava mealybugs, lays eggs on the mealybug and their larvae feed on them [26]. Similarly, the mealybug predator Cryptolaemus montrouzieri, reported by Anjana and Joy [37], can feed on a maximum of 5000 mealybug eggs in various life stages. Additionally, Anagyrus kamali controls the pink mealybug population by piercing the adult mealybug and laying eggs in them. The eggs hatch and the contents of the mealybug are used to nourish itself until it attains adulthood [37].
Consideration should be given to other insects (especially ants) that may antagonize the success of this biological control based on their relationship with mealybugs. The population of ants must be under control since they can mitigate the effectiveness of this method. Some ants have a mutualistic relationship with mealybugs [26,37,40], since they benefit from the honeydews made by mealybugs. Ants have an antagonistic relationship with the natural enemies of mealybugs. Also, ants play a role in the transportation and dispersion of several mealybug species [90], as several studies have demonstrated the transport and dispersal of mealybugs by ants [26,131].
The citrus mealybug (Planococcus citri) is reported to be effectively controlled by a range of parasites such as Eptomastidea abnormis (Girault), Leptomastix dactylopii Howard, Chrysoplatycerus splendens Howard and Anagyrus pseudococci (Girault) (Table 7).
Mealybug species | Natural Predators | Key findings | References |
Planococcus citri | Leptomastix dactylopii | Leptomastix was superior to other natural enemies | [26,132] |
Phenacoccus manihoti | Apoanagyrus lopezi, Epidinocarsis lopezi, Apoanagyrus diversicornis | Apoanagyrus species had maximum control of the cassava mealybug species in relation to other natural enemies | [133,134,135] |
Rastrococcus invadens | Gyranusoide tebygi, Anagyrus mangicola | Effective control of Rastrococcus invadens | [35] |
Planococcus ficus | Anagyrus pseudococci, Nephus angustus, Nephus quadrivattus, Nephus ninaevatus, Nephus sp., Hyperaspis felixi, Sycmnus nubilis Mulsant, Cynodia lunata, Rhizobiellus sp., Hippodamia sp., Chrysopa sp. | The Anagyrus species was more effective in controlling Planoccocus ficus mealybug | [26,136] |
Phenacoccus solenopsis | Oenopia (Synharmonia) conglobata(L.), Cheilomenes propingua (Mulsant) Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens), Chrysoperla mutata (Mc Lachlan) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), Sympherobius elegans (Stephens); Sympherobius fallax (Navas), (Neuroptera: Hemerobiidae) | These parasitoids had higher parasitizing activity as compared to other predators | [137,138] |
Dysmicoccus brevipes | Heterorhabditis amazonensis (NEPET 11 and IBCD.n40) | These two isolates reduced over 80% of the Dysmicoccus brevipes population | [139] |
Dysmicoccus brevipes | Metarhizium anisopliae, Beauveria bassiana and Lecanicillium lecanii | These fungi had maximum control of pink pineapple mealybug and other mealybugs | [140] |
Planococcoides njalensis | Acerophagus notativentis, Acerophagus pallidus, Aenasius abengoroui, Aenasius martini, Anagyrus aurantifrons, Anagyrus beneficiens, Arhopoides sp., Blepyrus saccharicola, Leptomastix bifasciatus, Leptomastix dactylopii, Platynapsis higginsi, Pseudaphycus sp., Scymnus sp., Tetracnemoidea sydneyensis, Tropidophryne melvillei | These predators have higher success in the control of Planococcoides njalensis | [141] |
Maconellicoccus hirsutus | Anagyrus kamali | Anagyrus kamali fed on more than 78 % of Maconellicoccus hirsutus reducing their population | [142,143] |
The use of chemicals during biocontrol methods should be regulated. In addition, non-selective insecticides tend to kill or neutralize several beneficial insect pollinators.
In recent times, chemical control methods have generated public outcry due to the accumulation of chemical residues in plant and food products [144,145] and their negative effects on the environment [146,147]. Cocco et al. [82] reported on the harmful levels of imidacloprid and chlorpyrifos (active ingredients in the control of several mealybug species) in waterbodies in Spain.Similarly, Babar et al. [148] emphasized on the need to regulate the use of profenofos, carbosulfan and methidathion during the control of Drosicha mangiferae on citrus farms in Pakistan. Mansour et al. [149] proposed in their review paper that the use of spirotetramat in combination with other treatments will effectively help reduce the population of Planococcus ficus and Planococcus citri. Chemicals used in pest control include acaricides, insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, larvicides.
The use of insecticides in the control of mealybugs is not recommended because their outer covering, made up of wax, protect them against the insecticides [26]. With time, they develop resistance to these chemical insecticides. Phenacoccus solenopsis is reported to show a minimal reaction to insecticides that are lethal to other mealybug species [150]. Also, mealybugs hide underneath leaves and their large group makes it difficult for the chemicals to have maximum contact [150]. Their rapid reproduction cycle is also reported to contribute to their resistivity to insecticides [151]. Insecticides containing dinotefuran, imidacloprid, or pyrethroids [26,152], which are active ingredients that are effective against crawling mealybugs but have serious irritations on other beneficial insect pollinators. Daane et al. [40] confirmed the reduction in the population of Planococcus ficus when insecticides with chlorpyrifos active ingredients were applied.
Alcohol is effective in the control of mealybug. A previous study confirmed the association between alcohol application and mealybug mortality. A spray with a 70% concentration of isopropyl alcohol killed 70-80% of most mealybug species when applied against them [92].
Biopesticides where plant extracts are used to combat mealybugs infestation are also effective against mealybugs. Extracts from plants, such as neem, have proven effective against plant pathogens and pests [153,154,155,156]. According to Abul Monjur Khan et al. [157], 2% of neem oil effectively reduced 30% of the papaya mealybug when applied. Azadirachtin, a compound in neem trees, slows insect metamorphosis and reproduction. the Azadirachtin compound leads to a reduced growth rate and death of insects [158]. Neem Kernel water extracts are deadly to young cassava mealybugs [34,35]. 1–2% concentration of insecticidal soaps and vegetable oil as biopesticides have successfully controlled mealybugs [34,35]. Additives, such as oil, dissolve and break up the thick covering of the mealybug [26].
Insecticides that disrupt the nervous system of insects, like the organophosphates class of insecticides (chlorpyrifos, acephate, dichlorvos and diazinon), are recommended to control mealybugs (Table 8). When applied in the right amount, this class of insecticides has been proven to eliminate most species of mealybugs [26].
Mealybug species | Chemical Control | Key Findings | References |
Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell)/Pineapple mealybug | 50% Fenithrothion, 50% Fenthion, 40.8% Chlorpyrifos | After 21 days, the mixture of these chemicals resulted in higher mealybug mortality after the second dose than the other tested chemicals | [159] |
Dysmicoccus brevipes | Omethoate, 48mg of AI Phorate per plant | More than half of the Dysmicoccus brevipes population were eliminated | [160] |
Phenacoccus solenopsis | Acephate, Chlorpyrifos | Planococcus solenopsis mealybug was reduced by 69% after Acephate and Chlorpyrifos as compared to other chemical treatments | [161] |
Phenacoccus solenopsis | Brufozen | After 3 days, Brufozen decreased the mealybug population by 95% | [161] |
Phenacoccus manihoti | Diazinon, Phosphamidon, Methidathion | Diazinon, Phosphamidon and Methidathion were 12.7, 10.8 and 7.3% effective in controlling the cassava mealybug as compared to the control | [162] |
Pseudococcuscoccus njalensis | (CR409) Bisdimethylamino-fluoro-phosphine oxide | CR409 was superior in the control of the cocoa mealybug | [163] |
Planococcus citri | 0.075% Zethiol, 0.075% Nogos 100 EC, Bisdimethylamino-fluoro-phosphine oxide (CR409) | 0.075% Zethiol and 0.075% Nogos 100EC completely eliminated Pseudococcus citri.CR409 had complete control over Planococcus citri | [164] |
Maconellicoccus hirsutus | Spirotetramat, bifenthrin, flypyradifurone, fenpropathrin | In the nymph stage, the fecundity of mealybug was highly affected after day 6 | [165] |
Planococcus ficus | Chlorpyrifos, Mevinphos | Chlorpyrifos, mevinphos had superior control as compared to other methods | [126] |
This paper reviewed the economic losses caused by mealybugs, mealybug-transmitted plant viruses, their mode of transmission, host plants of mealybugs and the control methods of mealybugs. The paper also highlighted someeconomic losses of mealybugs. In times of evolving plant viruses, the role of mealybugs cannot be underestimated.
Mealybugs are active in transmitting plant viruses' genera belonging to the Closteroviridae family. Of these genera, Ampeloviruses and Badnaviruses are actively transmitted by mealybug species.
Due to various environmental pollution problems, chemicals should be reduced or replaced by other safe control methods. Therefore, the biological control method of environmentally friendly mealybugs should be encouraged. For example, the Anagyrus species are effective against several mealybug species as biological control methods. Additionally, the use of plant products with insecticidal properties (neem seeds, leaves) to control mealybugs should be well researched.
Breeding of more mealybug-resistant varieties of plants should be encouraged. Genes that allow crop plants to withstand the aggressive feeding of mealybugs must be well studied. The acquisition and use of more tolerant varieties will help small-scale farmers who cannot afford expensive control methods.
Using one control method at a time makes the mealybug species build up resistance in a shorter time. In effect, further studies should be conducted on using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies in the management of mealybug species. IPM strategies are critical in controlling and managing mealybugs in the long term.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.
[1] | World Bank (2018) World Development Indicators, United Nations Population Division. World Population Prospects: 2019 Revision. |
[2] | The World Bank (2021) Thailand Healthcare Spending, WDI-Home. |
[3] |
Vollset SE, Goren E, Yuan CW, et al. (2020) Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: A forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 396: 1285–1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2
![]() |
[4] |
Procheş Ş, Wilson JRU, Vamosi JC, et al. (2008) Plant diversity in the human diet: Weak phylogenetic signal indicates breadth. Bioscience 58: 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580209 doi: 10.1641/B580209
![]() |
[5] |
Ficke A, Cowger C, Bergstrom G, et al. (2018) Understanding yield loss and pathogen biology to improve disease management: Septoria nodorum blotch—A case study in wheat. Plant Dis 102: 696–707. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-09-17-1375-FE doi: 10.1094/PDIS-09-17-1375-FE
![]() |
[6] |
Wang A, Krishnaswamy S (2012) Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E-mediated recessive resistance to plant viruses and its utility in crop improvement. Mol Plant Pathol 13: 795–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2012.00791.x doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2012.00791.x
![]() |
[7] | Ali Şevik M, Akyazi F, Karantina Müdürlüğü Z (2008) Bitki Patojeni Virüslerin Bitki Parazit Nematodlarla Taşınması. Batı Akdeniz Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü Derim Derg 25: 1–12. |
[8] |
Heck M (2018) Insect transmission of plant pathogens: A systems biology perspective. mSystems 3: e00168-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00168-17 doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00168-17
![]() |
[9] |
Shi X, Zhang Z, Zhang C, et al. (2021) The molecular mechanism of efficient transmission of plant viruses in variable virus–vector–plant interactions. Hortic Plant J 7: 501–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpj.2021.04.006 doi: 10.1016/j.hpj.2021.04.006
![]() |
[10] |
Cid M, Fereres A (2010) Characterization of the probing and feeding behavior of planococcus citri (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on grapevine. Ann Entomol Soc Am 103: 404–417. https://doi.org/10.1603/AN09079 doi: 10.1603/AN09079
![]() |
[11] |
Wielkopolan B, Jakubowska M, Obrępalska-Stęplowska A (2021) Beetles as plant pathogen vectors. Front Plant Sci 12: 748093. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.748093 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.748093
![]() |
[12] |
Bandte M, Pestemer W, Büttner C, et al. (2009) Ecological aspects of plant viruses in tomato and pathogen risk assessment. Acta Hortic 821: 161–168. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.821.17 doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.821.17
![]() |
[13] |
Jones DR (2005) Plant viruses transmitted by thrips. Eur J Plant Pathol 113: 119–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-005-2334-1 doi: 10.1007/s10658-005-2334-1
![]() |
[14] | Krishnareddy M (2013) Impact of climate change on insect vectors and vector-borne plant viruses and phytoplasma. In: Singh HCP, Rao NKS, Shivashankar KS (Eds.), Climate-Resilient Horticulture: Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies, Chapter 23, Springer, 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-0974-4_23 |
[15] | Zimmer R, Mpyers K, Haber S, et al. (1992) Tomato spotted wilt virus, a problem on grass pea and field pea in the greenhouse in 1990 and 1991. Can Plant Dis Surv 72: 29–31. |
[16] |
Dawidowicz Ł, Rozwałka R (2016) Honeydew Moth Cryptoblabes gnidiella (MILLIÈRE, 1867) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): an adventive species frequently imported with fruit to Poland. Polish J Entomol 85: 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjen-2016-0010 doi: 10.1515/pjen-2016-0010
![]() |
[17] |
Gharsan FN (2019) A Review of the Bioactivity of Plant Products Against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J Entomol Sci 54: 256–274. https://doi.org/10.18474/JES18-82 doi: 10.18474/JES18-82
![]() |
[18] |
Ordax M, Piquer-Salcedo JE, Santander RD, et al. (2015) Medfly ceratitis capitata as potential vector for fire blight pathogen erwinia amylovora: Survival and transmission. PLoS One 10: e127560. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127560 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127560
![]() |
[19] | Sastry KS (2013) Chapter 1—Transmission of Plant Viruses and Viroids. In: Plant Virus and Viroid Diseases in the Tropics, Springer, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6524-5 |
[20] |
Fereres A, Raccah B (2015) Plant Virus Transmission by Insects, eLS. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0000760.pub3 doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0000760.pub3
![]() |
[21] |
Perilla-Henao LM, Casteel CL (2016) Vector-borne bacterial plant pathogens: Interactions with hemipteran insects and plants. Front Plant Sci 7: 1163. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01163 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01163
![]() |
[22] |
Jones DR (2003) Plant viruses transmitted by whiteflies. Eur J Plant Pathol 109: 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022846630513 doi: 10.1023/A:1022846630513
![]() |
[23] |
Ng JCK, Perry KL (2004) Transmission of plant viruses by aphid vectors. Mol Plant Pathol 5: 505–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2004.00240.x doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2004.00240.x
![]() |
[24] | Sarwar M (2020) Chapter 27—Insects as transport devices of plant viruses. In: Awasthi LP (Ed.), Applied Plant Virology: Advances, Detection, and Antiviral Strategies, Academic Press, 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818654-1.00027-X |
[25] |
Chiquito-Almanza E, Acosta-Gallegos JA, García-Álvarez NC, et al. (2017) Simultaneous detection of both RNA and DNA viruses infecting dry bean and occurrence of mixed infections by BGYMV, BCMV and BCMNV in the Central-West Region of Mexico. Viruses 9: 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/v9040063 doi: 10.3390/v9040063
![]() |
[26] | Franco JC, Zada A, Mendel Z (2009) Chapter 9—Novel Approaches for the Management of Mealybug Pests. In: Ishaaya I, Horowitz AR (Eds.), Biorational Control Arthropod Pest (Application and Resistance Management), Springer, 233–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2316-2_10 |
[27] | Cox JM (1989) The mealybug genus Planococcus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Bull Br Museum (Natural Hist) Entomol 58: 1–78. https://biostor.org/reference/113927 |
[28] |
Naegele RP, Cousins P, Daane KM (2020) Identification of Vitis cultivars, rootstocks, and species expressing resistance to a Planococcus mealybug. Insects 11: 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11020086 doi: 10.3390/insects11020086
![]() |
[29] |
Pitino M, Hoffman MT, Zhou L, et al. (2014) The phloem-sap feeding mealybug (Ferrisia virgata) carries 'Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus' populations that do not cause disease in host plants. PLoS One 9: e85503. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085503 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085503
![]() |
[30] |
Prabhakar M, Prasad YG, Vennila S, et al. (2013) Hyperspectral indices for assessing damage by the solenopsis mealybug (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in cotton. Comput Electron Agric 97: 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.07.004 doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2013.07.004
![]() |
[31] | Alliaume A, Reinbold C, Uzest M, et al. (2018) Mouthparts morphology of the mealybug Phenacoccus aceris. Bull Insectology 71: 1–9. http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/ |
[32] |
Bhat AI, Hohn T, Selvarajan R (2016) Badnaviruses: The current global scenario. Viruses 8: 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/v8060177 doi: 10.3390/v8060177
![]() |
[33] | Kaydan MB, Kozár F, Hodgson C (2015) A review of the phylogeny of Palaearctic mealybugs (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Pseudococcidae). Arthropod Syst Phylogeny 73: 175–195. |
[34] | Coaker TH, Hill DS (1984) Agricultural insect pests of the tropics and their control. J Appl Ecol 21: 721. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/16341512 |
[35] | Neuenschwander P, Borgemeister C, Langewald J, et al. (2003) Biological control in IPM systems in Africa, 1–414. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851996394.0000 |
[36] |
Mendel Z, Protasov A, Jasrotia P, et al. (2012) Sexual maturation and aging of adult male mealybug (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Bull Entomol Res 102: 385–394. https://doi: 10.1017/S0007485311000605 doi: 10.1017/S0007485311000605
![]() |
[37] | Joy PP, Anjana R (2016) Insect pests of pineapple and their management. Pineapple Research Station (Karela Agicultural University), Vazhakhulam 1–3. |
[38] |
Kono M, Koga R, Shimada M, et al. (2008) Infection dynamics of coexisting beta- and gammaproteobacteria in the nested endosymbiotic system of mealybugs. Appl Environ Microbiol 74: 4175–4184. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00250-08 doi: 10.1128/AEM.00250-08
![]() |
[39] | Byron MA, Gillett-kaufman JL (2020)Targioni Tozzetti (Insecta : Hemiptera : Pseudococcidae) 1. Biology (Basel) 1–3. |
[40] |
Daane KM, Cooper ML, Triapitsyn SV, et al. (2008) Vineyard managers and researchers seek sustainable solutions for mealybugs, a changing pest complex. Calif Agric 62: 167–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.3733/ca.v062n04p167 doi: 10.3733/ca.v062n04p167
![]() |
[41] | Ben-Dov Y (1994) A systematic catalogue of the mealybugs of the world (Insecta: Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) with data on geographical distribution, host plants, biology and economic importance, Intercept Limited. Available from: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19941106629. |
[42] |
Khan M (2019) Abundance, damage severity and management of guava mealybug, ferrisia virgata ckll. SAARC J Agric 16: 73–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/sja.v16i2.40260 doi: 10.3329/sja.v16i2.40260
![]() |
[43] | Afzal M, Rahman SU, Siddiqui MT (2009) Appearance and management of a new devastating pest of cotton, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley in Pakistan. 2009 Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San Antonio, Texas, 1023–1039. Available from: https://www.cotton.org/beltwide/proceedings/2005-2022/data/conferences/2009/papers/9051.pdf. |
[44] | Aheer GM, Shah Z, Saeed M (2009) Seasonal history and biology of cotton mealy, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley. J Agric Res 4: 423–432. |
[45] | Bhat AI, Devasahayam S, Sarma YR, et al. (2003) Association of a badnavirus in black pepper (Piper nigrum L.) transmitted by mealybug (Ferrisia virgata) in India. Curr Sci 84: 1547–1550. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24108260 |
[46] | Khumpumuang P, Urairong H, Yongsawatdigul J, et al. (2019) Selection of soil bacteria for controlling cassava mealybugs. Suranaree J Sci Technol 26: 166–186. |
[47] |
Roivainen O (1976) Transmission of cocoa viruses by mealybugs (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Agric Food Sci 48: 203–304. https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.71915 doi: 10.23986/afsci.71915
![]() |
[48] |
Sarpong TM, Asare-Bediako E, Acheampong L (2017) Perception of mealybug wilt effect and management among pineapple farmers in Ghana. J Agric Ext 21: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4314/jae.v21i2.1 doi: 10.4314/jae.v21i2.1
![]() |
[49] | Watson GW, Kubiriba J (2005) Identification of mealybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on banana and plantain in Africa. African Entomol 13: 35–47. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC32626 |
[50] |
Asare‐Bediako E, Nyarko J, Puije GC (2020) First report of Pineapple mealybug wilt associated virus‐2 infecting pineapple in Ghana. New Dis Reports 41: 9. https://doi.org/10.5197/j.2044-0588.2020.041.009 doi: 10.5197/j.2044-0588.2020.041.009
![]() |
[51] |
Celepci E, Uygur S, Bora Kaydan M, et al. (2017) Mealybug (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) species on weeds in Citrus (Rutaceae) plantations in Çukurova Plain, Turkey Çukurova Bölgesi'nde turunçgil alanlarındaki yabancıotlar üzerinde bulunan unlubit (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) türleri. Türk entomol bült 7: 15–21. https://doi: 10.16969/teb.14076 doi: 10.16969/teb.14076
![]() |
[52] |
Lopes FSC, de Oliveira JV, Oliveira JE de M, et al. (2019) Host plants for mealybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in grapevine crops. Pesqui Agropecu Trop 49. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-40632019v4954421 doi: 10.1590/1983-40632019v4954421
![]() |
[53] |
Kansiime MK, Rwomushana I, Mugambi I, et al. (2020) Crop losses and economic impact associated with papaya mealybug (Paracoccus marginatus) infestation in Kenya. Int J Pest Manag 69: 1861363. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2020.1861363 doi: 10.1080/09670874.2020.1861363
![]() |
[54] | Sosan MB, Ajibade RO, Udah O, et al. (2020) Preliminary survey of mealybug incidence and infestation on pawpaw (Carica papaya l.) in a rainforest ecology in Nigeria. Ife J Agric 32: 79–90. Available from: https://ija.oauife.edu.ng/index.php/ija/article/view/337. |
[55] |
Tachie-Menson J, Sarkodie-Addo J, Carlson A (2015) Effects of weed management on the prevalence of pink Pineapple mealybugs in Ghana. J Sci Technol 34: 17–25. https://doi.org/10.4314/just.v34i2.3 doi: 10.4314/just.v34i2.3
![]() |
[56] | Wih K, Billah M (2012) Diversity of fruit flies and mealybugs in the upper west region of Ghana. J Dev Sustain Agric 7: 39–45. http://197.255.68.203/handle/123456789/1766 |
[57] |
Muniappan R, Shepard BM, Watson GW, et al. (2008) First report of the papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), in Indonesia and India. J Agric Urban Entomol 25: 37–40. https://doi.org/10.3954/1523-5475-25.1.37 doi: 10.3954/1523-5475-25.1.37
![]() |
[58] |
Charles JG (1988) Economic damage and preliminary economic thresholds for mealybugs (Pseudococcus longispinus t-t.) in auckland vineyards. New Zeal J Agric Res 25: 415–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1982.10417905 doi: 10.1080/00288233.1982.10417905
![]() |
[59] | Fand BB, Kumar M, Kamble AL (2014) Predicting the potential geographic distribution of cotton mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis in India based on MAXENT ecological niche Model. J Environ Biol 35: 973–982. |
[60] |
Nagrare VS, Kranthi S, Biradar VK, et al. (2009) Widespread infestation of the exotic mealybug species, Phenacoccus solenopsis (Tinsley) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), on cotton in India. Bull Entomol Res 99: 537–541. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485308006573 doi: 10.1017/S0007485308006573
![]() |
[61] |
Thennarasi A, Jeyarani S, Sathiah N (2021) Diversity of predators associated with the mealybug complex in cassava growing districts of Tamil Nadu, India. Int J Plant Soil Sci 33: 62–79. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2021/v33i2230684 doi: 10.9734/ijpss/2021/v33i2230684
![]() |
[62] |
Rauwane ME, Odeny DA, Millar I, et al. (2018) The early transcriptome response of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) to mealybug (Phenacoccus manihoti) feeding. PLoS One 13: e0202541. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202541 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202541
![]() |
[63] |
Dey KK, Green JC, Melzer M, et al. (2018) Mealybug wilt of pineapple and associated viruses. Horticulturae 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae4040052 doi: 10.3390/horticulturae4040052
![]() |
[64] |
Franco JC, Suma P, Da Silva EB, et al. (2004) Management strategies of mealybug pests of citrus in mediterranean countries. Phytoparasitica 32: 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02980445 doi: 10.1007/BF02980445
![]() |
[65] | Woolf AB, Ben-Arie R (2011) Chapter 9—Persimmon (Diospyros kaki L.). In: Kader AA, Yahia EL (Eds.), Postharvest Biology and Technology of Tropical and Subtropical Fruits, Woodhead Publishing, 166–194e. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857092618.166 |
[66] |
Grasswitz TR, James DG (2008) Movement of grape mealybug, Pseudococcus maritimus, on and between host plants. Entomol Exp Appl 129: 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00786.x doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00786.x
![]() |
[67] | Heppner JB, Heppner JB, Capinera JL, et al. (2008) Vine Mealybug, Planococcus ficus Signoret (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). In: Capinera JL (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Entomology, Springer, 4108–4111. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6359-6_3979 |
[68] |
Nébié K, Nacro S, Otoidobiga L, et al. (2016) Population dynamics of the mango mealybug Rastrococcus invadens Williams (Homoptera: Pseudococcidea) in western Burkina Faso. Am J Exp Agric 11: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJEA/2016/24819 doi: 10.9734/AJEA/2016/24819
![]() |
[69] |
Kubiriba J, Legg JP, Tushemereirwe W, et al. (2001) Vector transmission of Banana streak virus in the screenhouse in Uganda. Ann Appl Biol 139: 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2001.tb00128.x doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.2001.tb00128.x
![]() |
[70] |
Yu N, Luo Z, Fan H, et al. (2015) Complete genomic sequence of a Pineapple mealybug wilt-associated virus-1 from Hainan Island, China. Eur J Plant Pathol 141: 611–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-014-0545-z doi: 10.1007/s10658-014-0545-z
![]() |
[71] | Kumar PKV, Reddy GVM, Seetharama HG, et al. (2016) Coffee. In: Mani M, Shivaraju C (Eds.), Mealybugs and their Management in Agricultural and Horticultural crops, Springer, 643–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2677-2_70 |
[72] |
Rae DJ, Jones RE (1992) Influence of host nitrogen levels on development, survival, size and population dynamics of sugarcane mealybug, Saccharicoccus sacchari (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Aust J Zool 40: 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO9920327 doi: 10.1071/ZO9920327
![]() |
[73] |
Haviland DR, Beede RH (2012) Seasonal phenology of Ferrisia gilli (Hemiptera: pseudococcidae) in commercial pistachios. J Econ Entomol 105: 1681–1687. https://doi.org/10.1603/ec12070 doi: 10.1603/ec12070
![]() |
[74] |
Bertin S, Cavalieri V, Gribaudo I, et al. (2016) Transmission of Grapevine virus A and Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 1 and 3 by Heliococcus bohemicus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) nymphs from plants with mixed infections. J of Econ Entom 109: 1504–1511. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow120 doi: 10.1093/jee/tow120
![]() |
[75] |
Abdel-Moniem ASH, Farag NA, Abbass MH (2005) Vertical distribution of some piercing sucking insects on some roselle varieties in Egypt and the role of amino acids concentration in infestation. Arch Phytopathol Plant Prot 38: 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/03235400400008390 doi: 10.1080/03235400400008390
![]() |
[76] |
Myrick S, Norton GW, Selvaraj KN, et al. (2014) Economic impact of classical biological control of papaya mealybug in India. Crop Prot 56: 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2013.10.023 doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2013.10.023
![]() |
[77] | Mani M, Krishnamoorthy A, Shivaraju C (2011) Biological suppression of major mealybug species on horticultural crops in India. J Hortl Sci 6: 85–100. |
[78] | Ghosh AB, Ghosh SK (1985) Effect of infestation of Nipaecoccus vastator (Maskell) on host plants. Indian Agric 29: 141–147. |
[79] | Roda A, Francis A, Kairo MTK, et al. (2013) Planococcus minor (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae): Bioecology, survey and mitigation strategies. In: Potential Invasive Pests Agric Crop, Wallingford UK: CABI, 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845938291.0288 |
[80] |
Charles JG (2010) Using parasitoids to infer a native range for the obscure mealybug, Pseudococcus viburni, in South America. BioControl 56: 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-010-9322-x doi: 10.1007/s10526-010-9322-x
![]() |
[81] |
Sakthivel P, Karuppuchamy, Kalyanasundaram M, et al. (2012) Host plants of invasive papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus (Williams and Granara de Willink) in Tamil Nadu. Madras Agric J 99: 615–619. https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.100154 doi: 10.29321/MAJ.10.100154
![]() |
[82] |
Cocco A, Pacheco da Silva VC, Benelli G, et al. (2021) Sustainable management of the vine mealybug in organic vineyards. J Pest Sci 94: 153–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-020-01305-8 doi: 10.1007/s10340-020-01305-8
![]() |
[83] | Selvarajan R, Balasubramanian V, Padmanaban B (2016) Mealybugs as vectors. In: Mani M, Shivaraju C (Eds.), Mealybugs and their Management in Agricultural and Horticultural Crops, Springer, 123–130. |
[84] |
Sether DM, Hu JS (2002) Closterovirus infection and mealybug exposure are necessary for the development of mealybug wilt of pineapple disease. Phytopathology 92: 928–935. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO.2002.92.9.928 doi: 10.1094/PHYTO.2002.92.9.928
![]() |
[85] |
Obok EE, Aikpokpodion PO, Ani OC, et al. (2021) Cacao swollen shoot virus detection and DNA barcoding of its vectors and putative vectors in Theobroma cacao L. by using polymerase chain reaction. Biotechnologia 102: 229–244. https://doi.org/10.5114/bta.2021.108719 doi: 10.5114/bta.2021.108719
![]() |
[86] |
Fuchs M, Bar-Joseph M, Candresse T, et al. (2020) ICTV virus taxonomy profile: Closteroviridae. J Gen Virol 101: 364–365. https://doi.org/10.1099/jgv.0.001397 doi: 10.1099/jgv.0.001397
![]() |
[87] | Martelli GP, Abou Ghanem-Sabanadzovic N, Agranovsky AA, et al. (2012) Taxonomic revision of the family closteroviridae with special reference to the grapevine leafroll-associated members of the genus ampelovirus and the putative species unassigned to the family. J Plant Pathol 94: 7–19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45156004 |
[88] |
Dey KK, Sugikawa J, Kerr C, et al. (2019) Air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera) plants displaying virus-like symptoms are co-infected with a novel potyvirus and a novel ampelovirus. Virus Genes 55: 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11262-018-1616-6 doi: 10.1007/s11262-018-1616-6
![]() |
[89] |
Martelli GP, Agranovsky AA, Bar-Joseph M, et al. (2002) The family Closteroviridae revised. Arch Virol 147: 2039–2044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007050200048 doi: 10.1007/s007050200048
![]() |
[90] |
Ameyaw GA, Dzahini-Obiatey HK, Domfeh O (2014) Perspectives on cocoa swollen shoot virus disease (CSSVD) management in Ghana. Crop Prot 65: 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.07.001 doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2014.07.001
![]() |
[91] |
Fariña AE, Rezende JAM, Wintermantel WM (2019) Expanding knowledge of the host range of tomato chlorosis virus and host plant preference of Bemisia tabaci MEAM1. Plant Dis 103: 1132–1137. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-11-18-1941-RE doi: 10.1094/PDIS-11-18-1941-RE
![]() |
[92] | Flint ML (2016) PEST NOTES Statewide integrated pest management program integrated pest management for homes, gardens, and landscapes mealybugs publication 74174. Available from: https://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74174.html. |
[93] | Tsai CW, Rowhani A, Golino DA, et al. (2010) Mealybug transmission of grapevine leafroll viruses: An analysis of virus-vector specificity. Phytopathology 100: 830–834. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto-100-8-0830 |
[94] |
Sether DM, Melzer MJ, Busto J, et al. (2005) Diversity and mealybug transmissibility of ampeloviruses in pineapple. Plant Dis 89: 450–456. https://doi.org/10.1094/PD-89-0450 doi: 10.1094/PD-89-0450
![]() |
[95] |
Ito T, Nakaune R (2016) Molecular characterization of a novel putative ampelovirus tentatively named grapevine leafroll-associated virus 13. Arch Virol 161: 2555–2559. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-016-2914-8 doi: 10.1007/s00705-016-2914-8
![]() |
[96] |
Bahder BW, Poojari S, Alabi OJ, et al. (2013) Pseudococcus maritimus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) and Parthenolecanium corni (hemiptera: coccidae) are capable of transmitting grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 between vitis x labruscana and vitis vinifera. Environ Entomol 42: 1292–1298. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN13060 doi: 10.1603/EN13060
![]() |
[97] |
Thekke-Veetil T, Aboughanem-Sabanadzovic N, Keller KE, et al. (2013) Molecular characterization and population structure of blackberry vein banding associated virus, new ampelovirus associated with yellow vein disease. Virus Res 178: 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2013.09.039 doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2013.09.039
![]() |
[98] |
Larrea-Sarmiento A, Olmedo-Velarde A, Wang X, et al. (2021) A novel ampelovirus associated with mealybug wilt of pineapple (Ananas comosus). Virus Genes 57: 464–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11262-021-01852-x doi: 10.1007/s11262-021-01852-x
![]() |
[99] | Wallingford AK, Fuchs MF, Martinson T, et al. (2015) Slowing the spread of grapevine leafroll-associated viruses in commercial vineyards with insecticide control of the vector, Pseudococcus maritimus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). J Insect Sci 15: 112. https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fjisesa%2Fiev094 |
[100] |
Wistrom CM, Blaisdell GK, Wunderlich LR, et al. (2016) Ferrisia gilli (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) transmits grapevine leafroll-associated viruses. J Econ Entomol 109: 1519–1523. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow124 doi: 10.1093/jee/tow124
![]() |
[101] |
Maguet J Le, Beuve M, Herrbach E, et al. (2012) Transmission of six ampeloviruses and two vitiviruses to grapevine by Phenacoccus aceris. Phytopathology 102: 717–723. https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto-10-11-0289 doi: 10.1094/phyto-10-11-0289
![]() |
[102] |
Petersen CL, Charles JG (1997) Transmission of grapevine leafroll-associated closteroviruses by Pseudococcus longispinus and P. calceolariae. Plant Pathol 46: 509–515. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3059.1997.d01-44.x doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3059.1997.d01-44.x
![]() |
[103] |
Reynard JS, Schneeberger PHH, Frey JE, et al. (2015) Biological, serological, and molecular characterization of a highly divergent strain of grapevine leafroll-associated virus 4 causing grapevine leafroll disease. Phytopathology 105: 1164–1284. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-12-14-0386-R doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-12-14-0386-R
![]() |
[104] |
Ochoa-Martínez DL, Uriza-Ávila DE, Rojas-Martínez RI (2016) Detection of Pineapple mealybug wilt-associated virus 1 and 3 in Mexico. Revista Mexicana de Fitopatología 34: 131–141. https://doi.org/10.18781/R.MEX.FIT.1601-1 doi: 10.18781/R.MEX.FIT.1601-1
![]() |
[105] |
Al Rwahnih M, Rowhani A, Westrick N, et al. (2018) Discovery of viruses and virus-like pathogens in pistachio using high-throughput sequencing. Plant Dis 102: 1189–1471. https://doi.org/10.1094/pdis-12-17-1988-re doi: 10.1094/pdis-12-17-1988-re
![]() |
[106] |
Chouk G, Elair M, Chaabouni AC, et al. (2021) Pistacia vera L. hosts pistachio ampelovirus A in Tunisia. J Plant Pathol 103: 1335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42161-021-00905-2 doi: 10.1007/s42161-021-00905-2
![]() |
[107] | Elbeaino T, Digiaro M, De Stradis A, et al. (2007) Identification of a second member of the family Closteroviridae in mosaic-diseased figs. J Plant Pathol 89: 119–124. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41998365 |
[108] | Yorganci S, Açıkgöz S (2019) Transmission of fig leaf mottle-associated virus 1 by Ceroplastes rusci. J Plant Pathol 101: 1199–1201. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48699659 |
[109] |
Dolja VV, Koonin EV (2013) The closterovirus-derived gene expression and RNA interference vectors as tools for research and plant biotechnology. Front Microbiol 4: 83. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2013.00083 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00083
![]() |
[110] |
Komorowska B, Hasiów-Jaroszewska B, Czajka A (2020) Occurrence and detection of little cherry virus 1, little cherry virus 2, cherry green ring mottle virus, cherry necrotic rusty mottle virus, and cherry virus A in stone fruit trees in Poland. Acta Virol 64: 100–103. https://doi.org/10.4149/av_2020_112 doi: 10.4149/av_2020_112
![]() |
[111] |
Ferreira CHL de H, Jordão LJ, Ramos-Sobrinho R, et al. (2019) Diversification into the genus Badnavirus: Phylogeny and population genetic variability. Rev Ciência Agrícola 17: 59. https://doi.org/10.28998/rca.v17i2.6286 doi: 10.28998/rca.v17i2.6286
![]() |
[112] |
Kreuze JF, Perez A, Gargurevich MG, et al. (2020) Badnaviruses of sweet potato: Symptomless coinhabitants on a global scale. Front Plant Sci 11: 313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00313 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00313
![]() |
[113] |
Borah BK, Sharma S, Kant R, et al. (2013) Bacilliform DNA-containing plant viruses in the tropics: Commonalities within a genetically diverse group. Mol Plant Pathol 14: 759–771. https://doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12046 doi: 10.1111/mpp.12046
![]() |
[114] |
Quainoo AK, Wetten AC, Allainguillaume J (2008) Transmission of cocoa swollen shoot virus by seeds. J Virol Methods 150: 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2008.03.009 doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2008.03.009
![]() |
[115] | Ameyaw GA (2020) Management of the cacao swollen shoot virus (CSSV) menace in Ghana: The past, present and the future. In: Topolovec-Pintarić S (Ed.), Plant Diseases—Current Threats and Management Trends, London, UK: IntechOpen., 1–3. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87009 |
[116] |
Bömer M, Rathnayake AI, Visendi P, et al. (2018) Complete genome sequence of a new member of the genus Badnavirus, Dioscorea bacilliform RT virus 3, reveals the first evidence of recombination in yam badnaviruses. Arch Virol 163: 533–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-017-3605-9 doi: 10.1007/s00705-017-3605-9
![]() |
[117] | Koch KG, Jones T-KL, Badillo-Vargas IE (2020) Chapter 26—Arthropod vectors of plant viruses. In: Awasthi LP (Ed.), Applied Plant Virology—Advances, Detection, and Antiviral Strategies, Academic Press, 349–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818654-1.00026-8 |
[118] | Adams MJ, Candresse T, Hammond J, et al. (2012) Family—Betaflexiviridae. In: King AMQ, Lefkowitz E, Adams MJ, et al. (Eds.), Virus Taxonomy—Ninth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, London, Elsevier Academic Press, 920–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384684-6.00078-1 |
[119] | Hull R (2002) Chapter 6—Genome Organization. In: Matthews REF, Hull R (Eds.), Matthews' Plant Virology, Gulf professional publishing, 171–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-361160-4.X5050-6 |
[120] |
Mani M, Joshi S, Kalyanasundaram M, et al. (2013) A new invasive jack beardsley mealybug, Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on papaya in India. Florida Entomol 96: 242–245. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.096.0135 doi: 10.1653/024.096.0135
![]() |
[121] |
Andres C, Gattinger A, Dzahini-Obiatey HK, et al. (2017) Combatting cocoa swollen shoot virus disease: What do we know? Crop Prot 98: 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.03.010 doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2017.03.010
![]() |
[122] |
Karar H, Sayyed AH, Arif MJ, et al. (2010) Integration of cultural and mechanical practices for management of the mango mealybug Drosicha mangiferae. Phytoparasitica 38: 223–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12600-010-0094-8 doi: 10.1007/s12600-010-0094-8
![]() |
[123] |
Haviland DR, Bentley WJ, Daane KM (2005) Hot-water treatments for control of Planococcus ficus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) on dormant grape cuttings. J Econ Entomol 98: 1109–1115. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-98.4.1109 doi: 10.1603/0022-0493-98.4.1109
![]() |
[124] |
Carabalí-Banguero DJ, Wyckhuys KAG, Montoya-Lerma J, et al. (2013) Do additional sugar sources affect the degree of attendance of Dysmicoccus brevipes by the fire ant Solenopsis geminata? Entomol Exp Appl 148: 65–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eea.12076 doi: 10.1111/eea.12076
![]() |
[125] | Vincent C, Weintraub P, Hallman G (2009) Chapter 200—Physical control of insect pests. In: Resh VH, Cardé RT (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Insects (Second Edition), Academic press, 794–798. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374144-8.00209-5 |
[126] |
Franco JC, Silva EB, Cortegano E, et al. (2008) Kairomonal response of the parasitoid Anagyrus spec. nov. near pseudococci to the sex pheromone of the vine mealybug. Entomol Exp Appl 126: 122–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2007.00643.x doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2007.00643.x
![]() |
[127] | Kaur Gill H, Gaurav G, Gillett-Kaufman JL (2019) Citrus mealybug Planococcus citri (Risso) (Insecta: Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). University of Florida. Available from: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/IN947. |
[128] | Hartley DE (1992) 12—Poinsettias. In: Larson RA (Ed.), Introduction to Floriculture (Second Edition), Academic Press, 305–331. |
[129] |
Le Vieux PD, Malan AP (2013) An overview of the vine mealybug (Planococcus ficus) in South African vineyards and the use of entomopathogenic nematodes as potential biocontrol agent. South African J Enol Vitic 34: 108–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.21548/34-1-1086 doi: 10.21548/34-1-1086
![]() |
[130] | Tohamy TH, El-Raheem AAA, El-Rawy AM (2008) Role of the cultural practices and natural enemies for suppressing infestation of the pink sugarcane mealybug, Saccharicoccus sacchari (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in sugarcane fields at Minia Governorate, Middle Egypt. Egypt J Biol Pest Control 18: 177–188. Available from: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20093037731. |
[131] | Mani M, Shivaraju C (2016) Mealybugs and their management in agricultural and horticultural crops, Springer, 1–655. |
[132] |
Cadée N, Van Alphen JJM (1997) Host selection and sex allocation in Leptomastidea abnormis, a parasitoid of the citrus mealybug Planococcus citri. Entomol Exp Appl 83: 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.1997.00182.x doi: 10.1046/j.1570-7458.1997.00182.x
![]() |
[133] |
Giordanengo P, Nénon JP (1990) Melanization and encapsulation of eggs and larvae of Epidinocarsis lopezi by its host Phenacoccus manihoti; effects of superparasitism and egg laying patterns. Entomol Exp Appl 56: 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1990.tb01393.x doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.1990.tb01393.x
![]() |
[134] |
Pijls JWAM, Poleij LM, Van Alphen JJM, et al. (1996) Interspecific interference between Apoanagyrus lopezi and A. diversicornis, parasitoids of the cassava mealybug Phenacoccus manihoti. Entomol Exp Appl 78: 221–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1996.tb00785.x doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.1996.tb00785.x
![]() |
[135] |
Lapointe SL (2015) A tribute to Dr. Anthony C. Bellotti and his contributions to Cassava entomology. Fla Entomol 98: 810–814. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.098.0267 doi: 10.1653/024.098.0267
![]() |
[136] |
Walton VM, Pringle KL (2017) A survey of mealybugs and associated natural enemies in vineyards in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. South African J Enol Vitic 25: 23–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.21548/25-1-2134 doi: 10.21548/25-1-2134
![]() |
[137] | Çalışkan AF, Ulusoy MR (2018) Distribution, host plants, parasitoids, and predators of cotton mealybug. Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Pseudococcidae) from Eastern Mediterrenean region, 4th International Agriculture Congress, Muğla, 05–08. |
[138] |
Chen HY, Li HL, Pang H, et al. (2021) Investigating the parasitoid community associated with the invasive mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis in Southern China. Insects 12: 290. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040290 doi: 10.3390/insects12040290
![]() |
[139] |
Zart M, De MacEdo MF, Rando JSS, et al. (2021) Performance of entomopathogenic nematodes on the mealybug, Dysmicoccus brevipes (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) and the compatibility of control agents with nematodes. J Nematol 53: 2021–2041. https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2021-020 doi: 10.21307/jofnem-2021-020
![]() |
[140] | Chellappan M (2019) Evaluation of entomopathogenic fungus for the management of pink mealybug, Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on pineapple in Kerala. J Entomol Zool Stud 7: 1215–1222. |
[141] |
Bigger M (1981) The relative abundance of the mealybug vectors (Hemiptera: Coccidae and Pseudococcidae) of Cocoa swollen shoot disease in Ghana. Bull Entomol Res 71: 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485300008464 doi: 10.1017/S0007485300008464
![]() |
[142] |
Fuenmayor Y, Portillo E, Bastidas B, et al. (2021) Infection parameters of Heterorhabditis amazonensis (Nematoda: Heterorhabditidae) in different stages of Hibiscus pink mealybug. J Nematol 52: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2020-077 doi: 10.21307/jofnem-2020-077
![]() |
[143] | Katiyar RL, Kumar V, Manjunath D, et al. (2000) Biology of Anagyrus kamali (Moursi) (Hymenoptera : Encyrtidae)—A parasitoid of the mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green), with a note on its incidence. Int J Ind Entomol 1: 143–148. |
[144] |
Singh KD, Mobolade AJ, Bharali R, et al. (2021) Main plant volatiles as stored grain pest management approach: A review. J Agric Food Res 4: 100127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100127 doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100127
![]() |
[145] |
Taylor A, Birkett JW (2020) Pesticides in cannabis: A review of analytical and toxicological considerations. Drug Test Anal 12: 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.2747 doi: 10.1002/dta.2747
![]() |
[146] |
Farahy O, Laghfiri M, Bourioug M, et al. (2021) Overview of pesticide use in Moroccan apple orchards and its effects on the environment. Curr Opin Environ Sci Heal 19: 100223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2020.10.011 doi: 10.1016/j.coesh.2020.10.011
![]() |
[147] |
Kaur R, Mavi GK, Raghav S, et al. (2019) Pesticides classification and its impact on environment. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 8: 1889–1897. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.803.224 doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2019.803.224
![]() |
[148] | Babar M, Afzal S, Sikandar Z, et al. (2018) Efficacy of different insecticides under laboratory conditions against Drosicha mangiferae Green (Homoptera : Margarodidae) collected from citrus orchards of Sargodha, Pakistan. Pakistan J Entomol Zool Stud 6: 2855–2858. |
[149] |
Mansour R, Belzunces LP, Suma P, et al. (2018) Vine and citrus mealybug pest control based on synthetic chemicals. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 38: 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0513-7 doi: 10.1007/s13593-018-0513-7
![]() |
[150] | Edde PA (2022) 4—Arthropod pests of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). In: Field Crop Arthropod Pests of Economic Importance, Academic Press, 208–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818621-3.00003-3 |
[151] | Akhter A, Hage-Ahmed K, Soja G, et al. (2016) Potential of Fusarium wilt-inducing chlamydospores, in vitro behaviour in root exudates and physiology of tomato in biochar and compost amended soil. Plant Soil 406: 425–440. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11104-016-2948-4 |
[152] |
Sequeira RV, Khan M, Reid DJ (2020) Chemical control of the mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Australian cotton–glasshouse assessments of insecticide efficacy. Austral Entomol 59: 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/aen.12446 doi: 10.1111/aen.12446
![]() |
[153] | Waiganjo MM, Waturu CN, Mureithi JM (2011) Use of entomopathogenic Fungi and neem bio-pesticides for Brassica pests control and conservation of their natural enemies. East Afr Agric For J 77: 1&2. |
[154] |
Gahukar RT (2014) Factors affecting content and bioefficacy of neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) phytochemicals used in agricultural pest control: A review. Crop Prot 62: 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.04.014 doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2014.04.014
![]() |
[155] | Pascoli M, de Albuquerque FP, Calzavara AK, et al. (2020) The potential of nanobiopesticide based on zein nanoparticles and neem oil for enhanced control of agricultural pests. J Pest Sci 93: 793–806. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10340-020-01194-x |
[156] |
Ahmed S, Grainge M (1986) Potential of the neem tree (Azadirachta indica) for pest control and rural development. Econ Bot 40: 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02859144 doi: 10.1007/BF02859144
![]() |
[157] | Abul Monjur Khan M (2016) Efficacy of insect growth regulator Buprofezin against Papaya mealybug. J Entomol Zool Stud 4: 730–733. |
[158] | Ujváry I (2010) Chapter 3—Pest control agents from natural products. In: Krieger R (Ed.), Hayes' Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology (Third Edition), Academic press, 119–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374367-1.00003-3 |
[159] | ShouHorng H, ChingYi L (2014) Distribution and control of pink pineapple mealybug and survey of insect pests on pineapple. J Taiwan Agric Res 63: 68–76. |
[160] |
Rai BK, Sinha AK (1980) Pineapple: Chemical control of mealybug and associated ants in Guyana. J Econ Entomol 73: 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/73.1.41 doi: 10.1093/jee/73.1.41
![]() |
[161] |
Hussain M, Noureen N, Fatima S, et al. (2016) Cotton mealybug management: A Review. Middle-East J Sci Res 24: 2424–2430. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2016.24.08.101221 doi: 10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2016.24.08.101221
![]() |
[162] |
Atu UG, Okeke JE (2009) Effect of insecticide application on cassava yield in control of cassava mealybug (Phenacoccus Manlhotl). Trop Pest Manag 27: 434–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670878109413818 doi: 10.1080/09670878109413818
![]() |
[163] |
Hanna AD, Heatherington W, Judenko E (1952) Control of the mealybug vectors of the swollen shoot virus by a systemic insecticide. Nature 169: 334–335. https://doi.org/10.1038/169334a0 doi: 10.1038/169334a0
![]() |
[164] | Islam M, Ahmad M, Islam K, et al. (2006) Chemical control of citrus mealybug planococcus Citri risso (Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera) and the toxicological effects of insecticides on its predators Menochilussexmaculatus F. and Micraspis discolor F. (Coccinellidae: Coleoptera). J Sci Found 4: 27–30. |
[165] |
Ganjisaffar F, Andreason SA, Perring TM (2019) Lethal and sub-lethal effects of insecticides on the pink hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Insects 10: 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10010031 doi: 10.3390/insects10010031
![]() |
1. | Sahar E. Eldesouky, Mohamed E. Tawfeek, Mohamed Z. M. Salem, The toxicity, repellent, and biochemical effects of four wild plant extracts against Aphis gossypii Glover and Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley: HPLC analysis of phenolic compounds, 2024, 52, 0334-2123, 10.1007/s12600-024-01212-z | |
2. | Thor Vinícius Martins Fajardo, Priscila Grynberg, Roberto Coiti Togawa, João Marcos Fagundes Silva, Fabio Nascimento da Silva, Osmar Nickel, Analyzes of mealybug (Pseudococcus longispinus) virome reveal grapevine viruses diversity, 2024, 49, 1983-2052, 449, 10.1007/s40858-024-00647-3 | |
3. | D N Septariani, M A Cahya, Incidence of viral disease mosaic symptom and vector insects’ presence in several soybean varieties in pine agroforestry system, 2024, 1362, 1755-1307, 012057, 10.1088/1755-1315/1362/1/012057 | |
4. | Shatha Ahmed Mahdi, Hussam Nafea Shaker, Hayder Abdulhasan Ali, Review Article: Plant Viruses Transmitted by Insects, 2024, 2, 2786-7447, 804, 10.59324/ejtas.2024.2(5).71 | |
5. | Jiufeng Wei, Yunyun Lu, Minmin Niu, Bo Cai, Huafeng Shi, Wei Ji, Novel insights into hotspots of insect vectors of GLRaV-3: Dynamics and global distribution, 2024, 925, 00489697, 171664, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171664 | |
6. | DOUGLAS J. WILLIAMS, BARBARA D. DENNO, New genus names, family-group names and misspellings published between 2020 and 2023 in the scale insects (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Coccomorpha), 2024, 5415, 1175-5334, 347, 10.11646/zootaxa.5415.2.10 | |
7. | AGUSTIN ZARKANI, GILLIAN W. WATSON, MEHMET BORA KAYDAN, A new species in the mealybug genus Pseudococcus Westwood (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Pseudococcidae) from Indonesia, 2024, 5555, 1175-5334, 590, 10.11646/zootaxa.5555.4.6 | |
8. | Isakov B Ilyosbek, Khusanov K Alijon, Sobirov T Ozodbek, Zakirov Kozimjon, Turgunova Sh Ugiloy, Diagnostics of Planococcus vocae (Nasonov) from Uzbekistan, 2024, 0974-8172, 1, 10.55446/IJE.2024.2593 | |
9. | Sandhya Namadara, Sivakumar Uthandi, Anandham Rangasamy, Kannan Malaichamy, Manivannan Venkatesan, Manikanda Boopathi Narayanan, Senthilkumar Murugaiyan, Comprehensive review of the microbial approach to Mealybug management, 2025, 1742-7592, 10.1007/s42690-025-01452-4 | |
10. | Md. Mostakim, Disha Mallick, Joydeb Gomasta, Md. Ramiz Uddin Miah, Hasina Sultana, Milia Bente Momtaz, Md Mamunur Rahman, Development of ant-based mutualistic and antagonistic biocontrol strategies against cotton mealybugs, 2025, 2, 3005-1207, 10.1007/s44372-025-00146-y |
Species of Mealybugs | Common Names | Host Plants | References |
Pseudococcus longispinus | Longtailed mealybug | Citrus, grapes, nursery stock, indoor ornamentals, citrus, taro, avocado, guava, eggplant. | [34,35,65] |
Pseudococcus maritimus | Grape mealybug | Grapes, Pears, Pomegranate other fruit trees, apricots | [34,35,66] |
Planococcus citri (cryptus) | Citrus mealybug | Citrus, landscape shrubs | [34,35,51] |
Planococcus ficus | Vine mealybug | Grapes, fruits, ornamental plants | [34,35,40,67] |
Rastrococcus iceryoides and R. invadens | Mango Mealybug | Mango and Citrus | [35,68] |
Dysmicoccus brevipes | Pineapple mealybug | Pineapple, avocado, banana, celery, citrus, clover, cocoa, coconut, coffee, custard apple, figs, ginger, guava, maize, mango, oil palm, orchids, groundnut, peppers, plantain, potato and sugarcane. | [26,35,69,70] |
Planococcus kenyae | Kenya mealybug | Coffee, yam, pigeon pea, passion fruit, sugarcane and sweet potato | [27,71] |
Saccharicoccus sacchari | Sugarcane mealybug | sorghum, rice and some grasses, sugarcane | [26,72] |
Ferrisia virgata | Striped mealybug | Common on most crops | [26,34] |
Ferrisia gilli | Gill's mealybug | Pistachios | [73] |
Heliococcus bohemicus | Bohemian mealybug | Grapevine | [74] |
Phenacoccus aceris | Apple mealybug | Grapevine, apple | [74] |
Planococcus solani Ferris Phenococcus solenopsis Tinsley | Solanum mealybug | Solanaceous crops | [34,35] |
Maconellicoccus hirsutus | Pink hibiscus mealybug | Hibiscus | [35,75] |
Paracoccus marginatus | Papaya mealybug | Papaya, Solanaceous crops, cotton, pomegranate, pea, sweet potato. | [30,53,76] |
Nipaecoccus viridis | Spherical mealybug | Cotton | [77] |
Planococcus kraunhiae | Japanese mealybug | Broad bean | [26,78] |
Planococcus minor | Passionvine mealybug | Vine | [79] |
Planococcus njalensis | Cocoa mealybug | Cocoa | [54] |
Pseudococcus viburni | Tuber mealybug | Donkey lettuce, Whitestem filaree, Tubular flower, Spanish needle, Hairy fleabane, grapes, persimmon | [80,81,82] |
Virus species | Mealybug vectors | Hosts | References |
Air potato ampelovirus (AiPoV 1) | Planococcus spp. | Air potato | [88] |
Blackberry Vein banding associated virus | Planococcus spp. | Blackberry | [97,98] |
Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 1 | Planococcus ficus, Pseudococcus longispinus, Phenacoccus aceris, Heliococcus bohemicus | Grapevine | [19,74,99] |
Grapevine Leafroll -associated virus 3 | Planococcus ficus, Pseudococcus. longispinus, Ferrisia gilli, Phenacoccus aceris, Pseudococcus calceolariae, Heliococcus bohemicus, Pseudococcus maritimus | Grapevine | [19,74,96,99,100,101,102] |
Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 4 | Planococcus ficus, Pseudococcus longispinus, Phenacoccus aceris | Grapevine | [19,101,103] |
Grapevine leafroll associated virus 13 | Planococcus ficus, Pseudococcus longispinus | Grapevine | [19,95] |
Pineapple mealybug associated viruses 1 and 3 | Dysmicoccus brevipes, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes | Pineapple | [19,104] |
Pineapple mealybug associated virus 2 | Dysmicoccus brevipes, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes | Pineapple | [19,50,63,98] |
Pistachio ampelovirus | Planococcus ficus | Pistachio | [105,106] |
Fig leaf mottle associated viruses 1 and 2 | Ceroplastes spp. | Fig | [107,108] |
Manihot esculenta virus 1 | Phenacoccus manihoti, Phenacoccus herreni | Cassava | [62] |
Virus Species | Mealybug vectors | Hosts | Reference |
Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus | Planoccoides njalensis, Planococcus citri, Ferrissia virgata | Cacao | [114,115] |
Banana Streak Virus | Planoccocus citri Risso, Saccharicoccus sacchari, Dysmicoccus brevipes, Ferrisia virgata | Banana | [69,83] |
Citrus Yellow Mosaic Badnavirus | Planococcus citri | Citrus | [33] |
Sugarcane bacilliform virus | Saccharicoccus sacchari | Sugarcane | (Sastry, 2013) |
Piper yellow mottle virus | Ferrisia virgata, Planococcus citri, Pseudococcus elisae, | Black pepper | [19,83] |
Sugarcane mild mosaic virus | Saccharicoccus sacchari | Sugarcane | [19] |
Taro bacilliform badnavirus | Pseudococcus solomonensis | Taro | [83] |
Schefflera ringspot virus | Planococcus citri | Schefflera | [83] |
Dioscorea bacilliform RT virus | Planococcus spp | Yam | [116] |
Plant virus | Mealybug vector | Hosts | References |
Grapevine virus A (Kober Stem Grooving) | Pseudococcus spp, Planococcus ficus | Grapevine | [31,82,83] |
Grapevine virus B (Corky bark disease) | Planococcus ficus | Grapevine | [31,82,83] |
Grapevine Virus D | Phenacoccus spp | Grapevine | [83] |
Grapevine Virus E | Heliococcus spp | Grapevine | [31,83] |
Mealybug Species | Physical Method | Key findings | Reference |
Dysmicoccus brevipes, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes | Ant barriers | Red ants were controlled causing the decrease in pink pineapple mealybug transportation | [120] |
Planoccocus njalensis | Crop barriers, Barrier cropping | Farms with barrier crops had low mealybug infestation cases in comparison to those with none | [115,121] |
Drosica mangiferae | Crop rotation | Adequate control of mango mealybug | [122] |
Planococcus ficus | 51–53 ℃ hot water treatment of grape cuttings | Eradication of more than half of Planococcus ficus population | [123] |
Planococcus ficus | Ultralow oxygen treatment | Complete eradication of all life stages of Planococcus ficus | [82] |
Dysmicoccus brevipes, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes | 50 ℃-30 minutes hot water treatment of pineapple propagules | Most of the mealybug population were destroyed | [124] |
Planococcus citri Rossi, Pseudococcus odematti Miller and Williams | Hot water immersion of propagules | 90–95% of the mealybug population were eliminated | [123] |
Mealybug species | Cultural method | Key findings | References |
Planococcus ficus | resistant rootstocks (IAC 572, 10-17A, RS-3) | Resistant rootstocks were more resistant to Planococcus ficus infested as compared to other rootstocks | [82,123,126] |
Planococcus ficus | Low soil nitrogen content | Grape plants on low nitrogen level soil had low mealybug presence in comparison to other grape plants on soils with high nitrogen content | [82] |
Formicoccus njalensis, Planococcus citri | Breeding resistant varieties | Mealybug infestation was less in comparison to non-resistant varieties | [121] |
Sachharicoccus sacchari | Resistant varieties (Giza 96/74, Ph 8013) | Self-peeling varieties were less infected by the Saccharicoccus mealybug as compared to other varieties | [127,128] |
Planococcus njalensis | Roguing and pruning | Cocoa crops with pruned diseased parts had less mealybug infestation as compared to those not pruned | [121] |
Saccharicoccus sacchari | Flood irrigation, burning of dry leaves in the field | Number of mealybug infestation per plant was reduced | [128] |
Saccharicoccus sacchari | Low nitrogen fertilizer application, roguing, farm sanitation | Mealybug population was lower in farms where these practices were enforced | [128] |
Saccharicoccus sacchari | Drip irrigation | Increased drip irrigation method significantly reduced Saccharicoccus sacchari population | [128] |
Mealybug species | Natural Predators | Key findings | References |
Planococcus citri | Leptomastix dactylopii | Leptomastix was superior to other natural enemies | [26,132] |
Phenacoccus manihoti | Apoanagyrus lopezi, Epidinocarsis lopezi, Apoanagyrus diversicornis | Apoanagyrus species had maximum control of the cassava mealybug species in relation to other natural enemies | [133,134,135] |
Rastrococcus invadens | Gyranusoide tebygi, Anagyrus mangicola | Effective control of Rastrococcus invadens | [35] |
Planococcus ficus | Anagyrus pseudococci, Nephus angustus, Nephus quadrivattus, Nephus ninaevatus, Nephus sp., Hyperaspis felixi, Sycmnus nubilis Mulsant, Cynodia lunata, Rhizobiellus sp., Hippodamia sp., Chrysopa sp. | The Anagyrus species was more effective in controlling Planoccocus ficus mealybug | [26,136] |
Phenacoccus solenopsis | Oenopia (Synharmonia) conglobata(L.), Cheilomenes propingua (Mulsant) Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens), Chrysoperla mutata (Mc Lachlan) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), Sympherobius elegans (Stephens); Sympherobius fallax (Navas), (Neuroptera: Hemerobiidae) | These parasitoids had higher parasitizing activity as compared to other predators | [137,138] |
Dysmicoccus brevipes | Heterorhabditis amazonensis (NEPET 11 and IBCD.n40) | These two isolates reduced over 80% of the Dysmicoccus brevipes population | [139] |
Dysmicoccus brevipes | Metarhizium anisopliae, Beauveria bassiana and Lecanicillium lecanii | These fungi had maximum control of pink pineapple mealybug and other mealybugs | [140] |
Planococcoides njalensis | Acerophagus notativentis, Acerophagus pallidus, Aenasius abengoroui, Aenasius martini, Anagyrus aurantifrons, Anagyrus beneficiens, Arhopoides sp., Blepyrus saccharicola, Leptomastix bifasciatus, Leptomastix dactylopii, Platynapsis higginsi, Pseudaphycus sp., Scymnus sp., Tetracnemoidea sydneyensis, Tropidophryne melvillei | These predators have higher success in the control of Planococcoides njalensis | [141] |
Maconellicoccus hirsutus | Anagyrus kamali | Anagyrus kamali fed on more than 78 % of Maconellicoccus hirsutus reducing their population | [142,143] |
Mealybug species | Chemical Control | Key Findings | References |
Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell)/Pineapple mealybug | 50% Fenithrothion, 50% Fenthion, 40.8% Chlorpyrifos | After 21 days, the mixture of these chemicals resulted in higher mealybug mortality after the second dose than the other tested chemicals | [159] |
Dysmicoccus brevipes | Omethoate, 48mg of AI Phorate per plant | More than half of the Dysmicoccus brevipes population were eliminated | [160] |
Phenacoccus solenopsis | Acephate, Chlorpyrifos | Planococcus solenopsis mealybug was reduced by 69% after Acephate and Chlorpyrifos as compared to other chemical treatments | [161] |
Phenacoccus solenopsis | Brufozen | After 3 days, Brufozen decreased the mealybug population by 95% | [161] |
Phenacoccus manihoti | Diazinon, Phosphamidon, Methidathion | Diazinon, Phosphamidon and Methidathion were 12.7, 10.8 and 7.3% effective in controlling the cassava mealybug as compared to the control | [162] |
Pseudococcuscoccus njalensis | (CR409) Bisdimethylamino-fluoro-phosphine oxide | CR409 was superior in the control of the cocoa mealybug | [163] |
Planococcus citri | 0.075% Zethiol, 0.075% Nogos 100 EC, Bisdimethylamino-fluoro-phosphine oxide (CR409) | 0.075% Zethiol and 0.075% Nogos 100EC completely eliminated Pseudococcus citri.CR409 had complete control over Planococcus citri | [164] |
Maconellicoccus hirsutus | Spirotetramat, bifenthrin, flypyradifurone, fenpropathrin | In the nymph stage, the fecundity of mealybug was highly affected after day 6 | [165] |
Planococcus ficus | Chlorpyrifos, Mevinphos | Chlorpyrifos, mevinphos had superior control as compared to other methods | [126] |
Species of Mealybugs | Common Names | Host Plants | References |
Pseudococcus longispinus | Longtailed mealybug | Citrus, grapes, nursery stock, indoor ornamentals, citrus, taro, avocado, guava, eggplant. | [34,35,65] |
Pseudococcus maritimus | Grape mealybug | Grapes, Pears, Pomegranate other fruit trees, apricots | [34,35,66] |
Planococcus citri (cryptus) | Citrus mealybug | Citrus, landscape shrubs | [34,35,51] |
Planococcus ficus | Vine mealybug | Grapes, fruits, ornamental plants | [34,35,40,67] |
Rastrococcus iceryoides and R. invadens | Mango Mealybug | Mango and Citrus | [35,68] |
Dysmicoccus brevipes | Pineapple mealybug | Pineapple, avocado, banana, celery, citrus, clover, cocoa, coconut, coffee, custard apple, figs, ginger, guava, maize, mango, oil palm, orchids, groundnut, peppers, plantain, potato and sugarcane. | [26,35,69,70] |
Planococcus kenyae | Kenya mealybug | Coffee, yam, pigeon pea, passion fruit, sugarcane and sweet potato | [27,71] |
Saccharicoccus sacchari | Sugarcane mealybug | sorghum, rice and some grasses, sugarcane | [26,72] |
Ferrisia virgata | Striped mealybug | Common on most crops | [26,34] |
Ferrisia gilli | Gill's mealybug | Pistachios | [73] |
Heliococcus bohemicus | Bohemian mealybug | Grapevine | [74] |
Phenacoccus aceris | Apple mealybug | Grapevine, apple | [74] |
Planococcus solani Ferris Phenococcus solenopsis Tinsley | Solanum mealybug | Solanaceous crops | [34,35] |
Maconellicoccus hirsutus | Pink hibiscus mealybug | Hibiscus | [35,75] |
Paracoccus marginatus | Papaya mealybug | Papaya, Solanaceous crops, cotton, pomegranate, pea, sweet potato. | [30,53,76] |
Nipaecoccus viridis | Spherical mealybug | Cotton | [77] |
Planococcus kraunhiae | Japanese mealybug | Broad bean | [26,78] |
Planococcus minor | Passionvine mealybug | Vine | [79] |
Planococcus njalensis | Cocoa mealybug | Cocoa | [54] |
Pseudococcus viburni | Tuber mealybug | Donkey lettuce, Whitestem filaree, Tubular flower, Spanish needle, Hairy fleabane, grapes, persimmon | [80,81,82] |
Virus species | Mealybug vectors | Hosts | References |
Air potato ampelovirus (AiPoV 1) | Planococcus spp. | Air potato | [88] |
Blackberry Vein banding associated virus | Planococcus spp. | Blackberry | [97,98] |
Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 1 | Planococcus ficus, Pseudococcus longispinus, Phenacoccus aceris, Heliococcus bohemicus | Grapevine | [19,74,99] |
Grapevine Leafroll -associated virus 3 | Planococcus ficus, Pseudococcus. longispinus, Ferrisia gilli, Phenacoccus aceris, Pseudococcus calceolariae, Heliococcus bohemicus, Pseudococcus maritimus | Grapevine | [19,74,96,99,100,101,102] |
Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 4 | Planococcus ficus, Pseudococcus longispinus, Phenacoccus aceris | Grapevine | [19,101,103] |
Grapevine leafroll associated virus 13 | Planococcus ficus, Pseudococcus longispinus | Grapevine | [19,95] |
Pineapple mealybug associated viruses 1 and 3 | Dysmicoccus brevipes, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes | Pineapple | [19,104] |
Pineapple mealybug associated virus 2 | Dysmicoccus brevipes, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes | Pineapple | [19,50,63,98] |
Pistachio ampelovirus | Planococcus ficus | Pistachio | [105,106] |
Fig leaf mottle associated viruses 1 and 2 | Ceroplastes spp. | Fig | [107,108] |
Manihot esculenta virus 1 | Phenacoccus manihoti, Phenacoccus herreni | Cassava | [62] |
Virus Species | Mealybug vectors | Hosts | Reference |
Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus | Planoccoides njalensis, Planococcus citri, Ferrissia virgata | Cacao | [114,115] |
Banana Streak Virus | Planoccocus citri Risso, Saccharicoccus sacchari, Dysmicoccus brevipes, Ferrisia virgata | Banana | [69,83] |
Citrus Yellow Mosaic Badnavirus | Planococcus citri | Citrus | [33] |
Sugarcane bacilliform virus | Saccharicoccus sacchari | Sugarcane | (Sastry, 2013) |
Piper yellow mottle virus | Ferrisia virgata, Planococcus citri, Pseudococcus elisae, | Black pepper | [19,83] |
Sugarcane mild mosaic virus | Saccharicoccus sacchari | Sugarcane | [19] |
Taro bacilliform badnavirus | Pseudococcus solomonensis | Taro | [83] |
Schefflera ringspot virus | Planococcus citri | Schefflera | [83] |
Dioscorea bacilliform RT virus | Planococcus spp | Yam | [116] |
Plant virus | Mealybug vector | Hosts | References |
Grapevine virus A (Kober Stem Grooving) | Pseudococcus spp, Planococcus ficus | Grapevine | [31,82,83] |
Grapevine virus B (Corky bark disease) | Planococcus ficus | Grapevine | [31,82,83] |
Grapevine Virus D | Phenacoccus spp | Grapevine | [83] |
Grapevine Virus E | Heliococcus spp | Grapevine | [31,83] |
Mealybug Species | Physical Method | Key findings | Reference |
Dysmicoccus brevipes, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes | Ant barriers | Red ants were controlled causing the decrease in pink pineapple mealybug transportation | [120] |
Planoccocus njalensis | Crop barriers, Barrier cropping | Farms with barrier crops had low mealybug infestation cases in comparison to those with none | [115,121] |
Drosica mangiferae | Crop rotation | Adequate control of mango mealybug | [122] |
Planococcus ficus | 51–53 ℃ hot water treatment of grape cuttings | Eradication of more than half of Planococcus ficus population | [123] |
Planococcus ficus | Ultralow oxygen treatment | Complete eradication of all life stages of Planococcus ficus | [82] |
Dysmicoccus brevipes, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes | 50 ℃-30 minutes hot water treatment of pineapple propagules | Most of the mealybug population were destroyed | [124] |
Planococcus citri Rossi, Pseudococcus odematti Miller and Williams | Hot water immersion of propagules | 90–95% of the mealybug population were eliminated | [123] |
Mealybug species | Cultural method | Key findings | References |
Planococcus ficus | resistant rootstocks (IAC 572, 10-17A, RS-3) | Resistant rootstocks were more resistant to Planococcus ficus infested as compared to other rootstocks | [82,123,126] |
Planococcus ficus | Low soil nitrogen content | Grape plants on low nitrogen level soil had low mealybug presence in comparison to other grape plants on soils with high nitrogen content | [82] |
Formicoccus njalensis, Planococcus citri | Breeding resistant varieties | Mealybug infestation was less in comparison to non-resistant varieties | [121] |
Sachharicoccus sacchari | Resistant varieties (Giza 96/74, Ph 8013) | Self-peeling varieties were less infected by the Saccharicoccus mealybug as compared to other varieties | [127,128] |
Planococcus njalensis | Roguing and pruning | Cocoa crops with pruned diseased parts had less mealybug infestation as compared to those not pruned | [121] |
Saccharicoccus sacchari | Flood irrigation, burning of dry leaves in the field | Number of mealybug infestation per plant was reduced | [128] |
Saccharicoccus sacchari | Low nitrogen fertilizer application, roguing, farm sanitation | Mealybug population was lower in farms where these practices were enforced | [128] |
Saccharicoccus sacchari | Drip irrigation | Increased drip irrigation method significantly reduced Saccharicoccus sacchari population | [128] |
Mealybug species | Natural Predators | Key findings | References |
Planococcus citri | Leptomastix dactylopii | Leptomastix was superior to other natural enemies | [26,132] |
Phenacoccus manihoti | Apoanagyrus lopezi, Epidinocarsis lopezi, Apoanagyrus diversicornis | Apoanagyrus species had maximum control of the cassava mealybug species in relation to other natural enemies | [133,134,135] |
Rastrococcus invadens | Gyranusoide tebygi, Anagyrus mangicola | Effective control of Rastrococcus invadens | [35] |
Planococcus ficus | Anagyrus pseudococci, Nephus angustus, Nephus quadrivattus, Nephus ninaevatus, Nephus sp., Hyperaspis felixi, Sycmnus nubilis Mulsant, Cynodia lunata, Rhizobiellus sp., Hippodamia sp., Chrysopa sp. | The Anagyrus species was more effective in controlling Planoccocus ficus mealybug | [26,136] |
Phenacoccus solenopsis | Oenopia (Synharmonia) conglobata(L.), Cheilomenes propingua (Mulsant) Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens), Chrysoperla mutata (Mc Lachlan) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), Sympherobius elegans (Stephens); Sympherobius fallax (Navas), (Neuroptera: Hemerobiidae) | These parasitoids had higher parasitizing activity as compared to other predators | [137,138] |
Dysmicoccus brevipes | Heterorhabditis amazonensis (NEPET 11 and IBCD.n40) | These two isolates reduced over 80% of the Dysmicoccus brevipes population | [139] |
Dysmicoccus brevipes | Metarhizium anisopliae, Beauveria bassiana and Lecanicillium lecanii | These fungi had maximum control of pink pineapple mealybug and other mealybugs | [140] |
Planococcoides njalensis | Acerophagus notativentis, Acerophagus pallidus, Aenasius abengoroui, Aenasius martini, Anagyrus aurantifrons, Anagyrus beneficiens, Arhopoides sp., Blepyrus saccharicola, Leptomastix bifasciatus, Leptomastix dactylopii, Platynapsis higginsi, Pseudaphycus sp., Scymnus sp., Tetracnemoidea sydneyensis, Tropidophryne melvillei | These predators have higher success in the control of Planococcoides njalensis | [141] |
Maconellicoccus hirsutus | Anagyrus kamali | Anagyrus kamali fed on more than 78 % of Maconellicoccus hirsutus reducing their population | [142,143] |
Mealybug species | Chemical Control | Key Findings | References |
Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell)/Pineapple mealybug | 50% Fenithrothion, 50% Fenthion, 40.8% Chlorpyrifos | After 21 days, the mixture of these chemicals resulted in higher mealybug mortality after the second dose than the other tested chemicals | [159] |
Dysmicoccus brevipes | Omethoate, 48mg of AI Phorate per plant | More than half of the Dysmicoccus brevipes population were eliminated | [160] |
Phenacoccus solenopsis | Acephate, Chlorpyrifos | Planococcus solenopsis mealybug was reduced by 69% after Acephate and Chlorpyrifos as compared to other chemical treatments | [161] |
Phenacoccus solenopsis | Brufozen | After 3 days, Brufozen decreased the mealybug population by 95% | [161] |
Phenacoccus manihoti | Diazinon, Phosphamidon, Methidathion | Diazinon, Phosphamidon and Methidathion were 12.7, 10.8 and 7.3% effective in controlling the cassava mealybug as compared to the control | [162] |
Pseudococcuscoccus njalensis | (CR409) Bisdimethylamino-fluoro-phosphine oxide | CR409 was superior in the control of the cocoa mealybug | [163] |
Planococcus citri | 0.075% Zethiol, 0.075% Nogos 100 EC, Bisdimethylamino-fluoro-phosphine oxide (CR409) | 0.075% Zethiol and 0.075% Nogos 100EC completely eliminated Pseudococcus citri.CR409 had complete control over Planococcus citri | [164] |
Maconellicoccus hirsutus | Spirotetramat, bifenthrin, flypyradifurone, fenpropathrin | In the nymph stage, the fecundity of mealybug was highly affected after day 6 | [165] |
Planococcus ficus | Chlorpyrifos, Mevinphos | Chlorpyrifos, mevinphos had superior control as compared to other methods | [126] |