Tecoma stans (L.) Juss. Ex Kunth (Bignoniaceae) also known as yellow bells, has a native distribution from Northern Argentina, central America, Mexico and the Southern USA. In many warm climatic regions of the world, T. stans is commonly planted as an ornamental plant because of its yellow flowers, hence the name yellow bells, and pinnate foliage. As a result, this evergreen shrub has wide distribution in the tropical and subtropical parts of the western hemisphere. As is the case in many other parts of the world, T. stans was introduced into South Africa as an ornamental plant, but escaped cultivation and now invades roadsides, urban open spaces, watercourses, rocky sites in subtropical and tropical areas of five South African provinces; Gauteng, Mpumalanga, Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape and neighboring countries. Tecoma stans has the potential of extending its range because its seeds are easily dispersed by wind. The purpose of this work was to carry out pre-release efficacy studies to determine the host specificity and suitability of Pseudonapomyza sp. (Diptera: Agromyzidae), a leaf-mining fly, as a biological control agent of T. stans. Available information suggests that the fly was brought to South Africa (SA) from Argentina in 2005. In that year a worker collected adult root feeding fleabeetles from T. stans and their eggs by collecting soil around the plants in the Argentinian Province of Jujuy, at San Pedro (24°12’592”S, 64°51’328”W). The soil was brought to the SA quarantine laboratory of the Agricultural Research Council, Plant Protection Research Institute (Weeds Division), Pretoria, and placed in a cage containing T. stans plants for flea-beetle larvae to emerge from the eggs. The Pseudonapomyza sp. flies which emerged from that soil were reared to produce a colony of flies used in the study reported here. The feeding behavior of Pseudonapomyza sp. adults is initiated by females which use their ovipositor to puncture holes in the leaf mesophyll and then they feed on the sap oozing from the holes. Since males have no means of puncturing the leaves, they feed from holes made by females. Eggs are laid singly into the tubular leaf punctures. Soon after hatching, the larva feeds on the leaf mesophyll tissue. As the larva feeds within the leaf it creates mines which eventually coalesce to form large blotches. The damaged leaf area reduces the photosynthetic potential of the plant especially when damaged leaves dry and fall off the plants. The potential of Pseudonapomyza sp. as a biocontrol agent is enhanced by the fact that it has a high level of fecundity and a short life cycle. As a result, its populations can build up rapidly to exert a significant impact on T. stans. Host-specificity tests undertaken on 35 plant species in 12 plant families showed that out of the 35 plant species tested, the fly was able to develop on T. stans only. Although Pseudonapomyza sp. adults fed on T. capensis, a South African indigenous ornamental shrub, no larval mines were observed on this plant. This suggests two possibilities; either females of Pseudonapomyza sp. do not oviposit on T. capensis or oviposition takes place but larvae cannot feed and develop on this plant. These studies indicate that this fly is sufficiently host-specific, and can be released against T. stans without posing any threat to either commercial or indigenous plant species grown in South Africa. Experimental designs simulating high populations of Pseudonapomyza sp. showed that the impact of leaf mining fly on T. stans can cause approximately 56 percent aboveground biomass reduction. Other concurrent studies have also showed that low and high density fly infestations can cause 23 percent and 48 percent belowground biomass reductions, respectively. Based on the available information, it appears that Pseudonapomyza sp. may have the potential to reduce the invasive capacity of T. stans in the affected areas. In order to exert more herbivore pressure on T. stans, it is suggested that agents belonging to other feeding guilds, such as root-, stem- and seed-feeding insects, be considered for release to complement the leaf-feeding of Pseudonapomyza sp. An application to release this fly in SA has been submitted to one of the two regulatory authorities.

The initial phase in the development of a biological control strategy is screening of biological control agents. Secondary to this phase is the establishment of accurate, effective application techniques. However, successful control requires a thorough understanding of all factors affecting the relationship between host plant, pathogen and other microbes. The purpose of this study was to screen and identify potential bacterial antagonists against Alternaria, a fungal citrus pathogen, attachment of the antagonists to bees, and bee dissemination of the antagonist to citrus flowers. A total of 568 bacterial epiphytes were screened on agar plates for antagonism against Alternaria. Only eight of these isolates, which were identified as Bacillus subtilis, B licheniformis, B. melcerons, B. polymyxa, B. thermoglycodasius, B. sphaericus, B. amiloliquefaciens, and B. coagulans, showed inhibitory effects on the growth of Alternaria. The most effective isolates were B. subtilis and B. licheniformis. Further screening was done with B. subtilis and B. subtilis commercial powder (Avogreen). These bacteria were sprayed on citrus flowers for colonisation studies. Mean populations of B. subtilis and the commercial powder recovered from the flowers were 104 and 103 cfu/stamen respectively. The organisms colonised the styler end and ovary of the flowers when observed under scanning electron microscope (SEM). Avogreen was placed in an inoculum dispenser, which was attached to the entrance of the hive. Honeybees emerging from the beehive acquired 104 cfu/bee. The powder attached to the thorax and thoracic appendages, as revealed by SEM. One active beehive was placed in an enclosure with fifteen flowering citrus nursery trees in pots for dissemination trials. Mean populations of commercial B. subtilis recovered from the flowers visited by bees were 104 cfu/stamen. Electron microscope studies revealed that the antagonist was colonising the styler end and ovary of the flowers. Field dissemination studies were unsuccessful due to low yields. / Dissertation (Magister Institutiones Agrariae)--University of Pretoria, 2003. / Plant Production and Soil Science / unrestricted

The diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), is a cosmopolitan insect pest of Brassica crops. In South Africa, there are no action thresholds for its chemical control which makes it difficult for growers to make informed decisions on when to apply insecticides and how frequently to apply them in order to achieve optimal crop yield. To contribute towards optimum application of insecticides against P. xylostella, this study compared the impact of weekly and bi-weekly applications of a selective insecticide Dipel® (Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner var. kurstaki) applied at 250 g/ha, and a broad-spectrum insecticide Dichlorvos (an organophosphate) applied at 1 ml/L against biological control (Control) on the pest population density on cabbage during October– December 2011 and March–May 2012. The use of both selective and broad-spectrum insecticides for experiments enables us to understand if efforts to optimise cabbage yield depend mainly on effective suppression of P. xylostella densities. Furthermore, investigations were carried out to determine the impact of these chemicals on parasitism rates of P. xylostella and species richness of its primary parasitoids. During the October–December 2011 growing season, the lowest infestation of P. xylostella occurred on cabbage plots that received weekly application of Dipel and the highest on untreated control plots. Cabbage weights were negatively related to infestation levels, implying that weekly application of Dipel yielded bigger cabbage heads. During March– May 2012, P. xylostella infestations were again higher on the control followed by weekly and bi-weekly treatments of Dichlorvos, then weekly and bi-weekly applications of Dipel. Despite the significant differences observed, infestation levels were much lower (< 1 P. xylostella per plant on average) in all treatments during this season. Consequently no significant differences in cabbage weights were observed among the treatments. The lower infestation levels were attributed to higher parasitism levels (≥50 %), especially during the early stages of crop development. A total of four parasitic Hymenoptera species were recorded from P. xylostella larvae and pupae during October–December 2011, while three species were recorded during March– May 2012. However, Cotesia vestalis (Haliday) (Braconidae) accounted for >80 % of total parasitism levels in all treatments. Parasitism levels were not significantly different among the treatments in both seasons. Parasitoid species richness was highest on the control. Although two parasitoid species were recorded in all Dipel and Dichlorvos treatments during October–December 2011, only one parasitoid species was recorded in the Dipel treatments during March–May 2012 compared to two species in Dichlorvos treatments. Although weekly applications of Dipel ensured good yield and crop quality during October–December, weekly applications of the chemical did not lead to better quality crop during March–May crop growing season. Thus, it is not necessary to apply insecticides during periods in which natural mortality of P. xylostella is high due to parasitoids. Since P. xylostella abundance was a determining factor of crop quality, these results imply that insect pest management should focus mainly on suppressing its numbers. Furthermore, there was no evidence that application of either insecticide type had a negative impact on parasitism rates of P. xylostella. The lower parasitoid species richness on Dipel treated plots was the consequence of its higher efficiency in suppressing the pest population which substantially reduced availability of potential hosts for parasitoids, hence only the efficient C. vestalis was recorded at low host densities / Agriculture and  Animal Health / M.Sc. (Agriculture)

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.