Next Article in Journal
Isolation of a Marker Olean-12-en-28-butanol Derivative from Viscum continuum E. Mey. Ex Sprague and the Evaluation of Its Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Potentials
Previous Article in Journal
Unlocking the Potential of Pepper Plants under Salt Stress: Mycorrhizal Effects on Physiological Parameters Related to Plant Growth and Gas Exchange across Tolerant and Sensitive Genotypes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Interactions of Opuntia ficus-indica with Dactylopius coccus and D. opuntiae (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae) through the Study of Their Volatile Compounds
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/plants13101381
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Using Age-Stage Two-Sex Life Tables to Assess the Suitability of Three Solanaceous Host Plants for the Invasive Cotton Mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley

by
Khaled Abbes
1,
Ahlem Harbi
1,
Emilio Guerrieri
2 and
Brahim Chermiti
1,*
1
Department of Biological Sciences and Plant Protection, High Agronomic Institute of Chott-Mariem, University of Sousse, Sousse 4042, Tunisia
2
Institute for Sustainable Plant Protection, National Research Council of Italy, URT IPSP-DISIT, 15121 Alessandria, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2024, 13(10), 1381; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13101381
Submission received: 4 April 2024 / Revised: 13 May 2024 / Accepted: 14 May 2024 / Published: 16 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant–Insect Interactions II)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Pseudococcidae), the cotton mealybug, is an invasive polyphagous species that has been extending its geographic range, posing a conspicuous threat to many Mediterranean crops of economic importance. These include three species of Solanaceae, namely Solanum lycopersicum L. (tomato), Solanum tuberosum L. (potato) and Solanum melongena L. (eggplant) all of which are economically important worldwide. In this study, we used age-stage two-sex life tables to investigate the suitability of these three plant species as hosts for P. solenopsis and to calculate pest fitness, life history parameters and population projection parameters. All tested host plants that were suitable for the pest and eggplant host plant induced a higher fecundity (276.50 ± 10.78 eggs/female), net reproductive rate (R0) (243.32 ± 15.83 offspring/female) and finite rate of increase (λ) (1.18 ± 0.0043 day−1) and more extended adult longevity (males: 6.50 ± 0.34 days and females: 24.15 ± 0.50 days). Population growth predictions over a period of 90 days of infestation, commencing with an initial population of 10 eggs showed that adult population size was 674,551 on tomato, 826,717 on potato and 355,139 on eggplant. Our data on plant host preference of P. solenopsis will aid the development of appropriate management strategies and achieve successful control of this invasive pest in key Mediterranean crop systems.

1. Introduction

Invasive insect pests remain a constant threat to agricultural production systems worldwide. Their invasion benefits from both climate change and the rapid global trade of agricultural products including ornamentals, fruits and seedlings. In most cases, their establishment outside their native range can cause significant economic and ecological losses by disturbing ecosystem balance and impairing already implemented Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies, often leading to the overuse of synthetic insecticides [1,2,3].
Among invasive agricultural pests, mealybugs (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Pseudococcidae) are a major threat due to their biological features including cryptic behavior, high reproductive capacity, ecological plasticity and, in many cases, the ability to develop resistance to insecticides [4,5]. The cotton mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley has expanded its geographical distribution over the last decades [6]. Thus far, it has been reported in more than 70 countries worldwide and it is considered one of the most devastating pests of cotton in Asia (e.g., China, India, Iran and Pakistan) [7,8,9]. More recently, this pest has invaded several Mediterranean countries including Algeria, CyprusEgypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17].
Phaenacoccus solenopsis is a highly polyphagous sap-feeding insect attacking about 300 host plant species belonging to 65 families, in particular species of Amaranthaceae, Asteraceae, Cucurbitaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Lamiaceae, Malvaceae and Solanaceae. It primarily feeds on the aerial parts of the plants, but can attack also roots and collars, producing abundant wax and honeydew, the latter promoting the development of sooty mould. Mealybug infestations cause distorted and bushy shoots, crinkled and/or twisted and bunchy leaves and ultimately death in the absence of efficient control measures [8,9,14,18].
Currently, cotton remains the preferred host crop of P. solenopsis with yield losses in Pakistan, China and India of 0.48, 1.4 and 1.12 million tons, respectively, during 2008–2009 [18]. Hence, an intensive and irrational use of insecticides for its management was adopted, leading to the emergence of resistance to many insecticides in several field populations [19,20,21,22]. In other invaded regions where cotton is not a key crop, P. solenopsis spread adapting to wild and ornamental hosts such as Lantana camara L. (Verbenaceae) and Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. (Malvaceae) or has become a serious pest of Solanaceous crops, as has happened in Israel and Egypt where it has been reported on bell pepper, eggplant, tomato and potato [11,23,24]. Owing to the recent invasion of P. solenopsis in European and Mediterranean countries, it is therefore critical to assess the suitability of most relevant Solanaceous vegetables as host plants to reduce the possible yield losses and to develop efficient monitoring and control protocols.
Life table analyses including life history parameters and population fluctuations are an essential tool for studying insect ecology and fitness. They provide helpful information about insect biology and reproductive capacity allowing prediction of their performance and mortality patterns in relation to different host plants and environmental conditions [25]. However, for biparental species, conventional age-specific life tables often omit the contribution of males and differentiation by stage [26]. To fill this gap, Chi and Liu [27], Chi [28] and Chi et al. [29] developed the age-stage two-sex life table which has been successfully applied to study various ecological aspects of insect pests and their natural enemies [30,31,32].
In this study, we investigated the biology, survival, reproduction and life table parameters of P. solenopsis when reared on three economically important Solanaceous host plants, S. lycopersicum (tomato), S. tuberosum (potato) and S. melongena (eggplant), based on the age-stage two-sex life table using the TWOSEX-MSChart® software. We also assessed population-projection parameters using the TIMING-MSChart® program.

2. Results

Values for the developmental time of each stage, longevity and total duration of the life cycle of males and females on different hosts are presented in Table 1.
The egg-incubation time was the same on all host plants (1 d). For females, the duration of the first instar was longer on eggplant (6.18 ± 0.12 days) than on potato (5.58 ± 0.11 days) and tomato (4.88 ± 0.13 days) (PTP = 0.0001; PTE = 0; PPE = 0.0005). The duration of the second instar did not differ among host plants ranging from 4.70 ± 0.15 to 4.84 ± 0.18 days (PTP = 0.701; PTE = 0.8721; PPE= 0.1412). The duration of the third instar was greater on eggplant (7.09 ± 0.24 days) than on tomato (6.30 ± 0.26 days) and potato (6.28 ± 0.20 days) (PTP = 0.0202; PTE = 0.0287; PPE = 0.0111). For males, the duration of the first instar was greater on eggplant (6.50 ± 0.43 days) than on potato (5.36 ± 0.15 days) and tomato (4.71 ± 0.36 days) (PTP = 0.1045; PTE = 0.0035; PPE = 0.0185). The duration of the second instar was greater on potato (6.54 ± 0.41 days) than on tomato (5.28 ± 0.47 days) and eggplant (5.16 ± 0.48 days) (PTP = 0.047; PTE = 0.8721; PPE = 0.1412). The duration of the pupa was greater on potato (7.09 ± 0.54 days) and tomato (6.71 ± 0.47 days) than on eggplant (4.50 ± 0.22 days) (PTP = 0.602; PTE= 0.0001; PPE= 0.0001). The total female pre-adult developmental duration was greater on eggplant than tomato and potato (PTP = 0.0717; PTE = 0; PPE = 0.001) and that of male was greater on potato than on tomato and eggplant (PTP = 0.0082; PTE = 0.5937; PPE = 0). The longevity of adults was greater on eggplant than on tomato and potato for both males (PTP = 0.9248; PTE = 0; PPE = 0) and females (PTP = 0.0008; PTE = 0; PPE = 0). The duration of the life cycle of females was greatest on eggplant and lowest on tomato and potato (PTP = 0.3548; PTE = 0; PPE = 0) and that of males was the longest on potato and eggplant and the shortest on tomato (PTP = 0.0168; PTE = 0.0203; PPE = 0.5512).
Data on fecundity, adult preoviposition period (APOP), total preoviposition period (TPOP) and oviposition days on the different host plants tested are shown in Table 2.
The greatest APOP was registered on eggplant followed by tomato and potato (PTP = 0.0001; PTE = 0; PPE = 0). Similarly, TPOP was greater on eggplant than on tomato and potato (PTP = 0.4267; PTE = 0; PPE = 0). Concerning fecundity, it was greater on eggplant (276.50 ± 10.78 eggs/female) than on potato (244.92 ± 9.75 eggs/female) and on tomato (155.60 ± 11.99 eggs/female) (PTP = 0; PTE = 0; PPE = 0.0298). The number of oviposition days was greatest on potato (13.64 ± 0.17 days) followed by tomato (12.72 ± 0.24 days) and eggplant (10.84 ± 0.11 days) (PTP = 0.0022; PTE = 0; PPE = 0).
The mean net reproductive rate (R0) of P. solenopsis was significantly different on the selected host plants, attaining its highest value on eggplant (243.32 ± 15.83 nymphs/female), followed by potato (191.04 ± 16.23 nymphs/female) and tomato (133.82 ± 12.78 nymphs/female) (PTP = 0.0056; PTE = 0; PPE = 0.0213). The average intrinsic rate of increase (r) was greatest on potato (0.18 ± 0.00 d−1) compared to tomato and eggplant (PTP = 0.0245; PTE = 0.5411; PPE = 0.0024). The finite rate of increase (λ) was significantly greater on tomato and eggplant (1.18 ± 0.005 d−1 and 1.18 ± 0.004 d−1, respectively) than on potato (1.20 ± 0.004 d−1) (PTP = 0.0244; PTE = 0.5411; PPE = 0.0024) (Table 3).
The age-stage-specific survival rate (sxj) of P. solenopsis on different host plants indicates the probability that a newborn will survive to age x and develop to stage j (Figure 1).
Due to variable developmental rates among individuals, significant overlap was observed between stages in the survival curves. The first females emerged on days 12, 14 and 15, while the first males appeared on days 14, 19 and 16 on tomato, potato and eggplant, respectively. The survival rates of preadult instars ranged between 92% and 100%, while those of females were 84%, 78% and 86% on tomato, potato and eggplant, respectively. The lowest survival rate was recorded for males not exceeding 20% on all studied host plants.
The single age-stage survival rate (lx) predicts that an egg will survive to age x (Figure 2). On all host plants, the lx curve was constantly around 100% during the early stages, indicating a relatively low mortality rate.
The age-stage-specific fecundity (fx) curve peak on potato was greater than that recorded for eggplant and tomato. The curve of age-specific fecundity (mx) showed that reproduction began at 19 days on tomato and potato and 3 days later on eggplant, and that the fecundity on potato and eggplant was greater than on tomato.
The age-stage life expectancy (exj) estimates the life duration of an individual of age x and stage j. The longevity of P. solenopsis at age zero (e01) was 35.6 days on tomato, 34.38 days on potato and 40.80 days on eggplant (Figure 3).
The age-stage reproductive value (vxj) shows the contribution of an individual from age x to stage j to the future population. The curves of reproductive value significantly increased when reproduction began, as shown in Figure 4. The value of vxj peaked on day 26 for tomato and potato and on day 30 for eggplant with values of 54.87 d−1, 99.57 d−1 and 103.59 d−1, respectively.
Population growth predictions of P. solenopsis on considered host plants generated via the TIMING-MSChart® program are shown in Figure 5, which reveals considerable growth curves. Simulations suggest that they start to appear on the 12th, 14th and 15th days on eggplant, respectively (Figure 6A). The total predicted adult population size (Nt) after 90 days was 674,551 on tomato, 826,717 on potato and 355,139 on eggplant (Figure 6B,C).

3. Discussion

Although cotton remains its preferred host, P. solenopsis is considered to be a potential economic pest of many other crops [33]. Its host range has been expanding over the last decade alongside its geographic spread largely due to favorable climate change. As a result, many Solanaceous crops including tomato, potato and eggplant, have become common hosts for this species in several newly colonized countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Italy and Tunisia, and in these newly invaded countries, where cotton is limited or absent, the damage to Solanaceous crops can be severe due, in particular, to its considerable reproductive capacity: P. solenopsis may go through many generations per cropping cycle. Furthermore, modelling studies predict that there will be a rise in the number of generations/year of this species, prompted by global warming [6]. In addition, it has been demonstrated that P. solenopsis produces more honeydew on tomato than on cotton [34], causing a greater amount of indirect damage, linked to the development of sooty mould which causes a reduction of photosynthesis and a depreciation of fruit quality. The production of honeydew also prompts a mutualism between ants and P. solenopsis that contributes to the rapid infestation by the mealybug, also hampering the possible action of natural enemies. For example, it has been demonstrated how ants successfully facilitated the invasion of another mealybug, Delottococcus aberiae De Lotto (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), on citrus in Spain [35]. In Mediterranean crops, the situation may be even more complicated due to the absence of coevolved specific natural enemies of this pest and the concomitant pressure posed by other invasive pests such as Tuta absoluta (Meyrick, 1917) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) (the tomato leafminer) on tomato and eggplant and Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say, 1824) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) (the Colorado potato beetle) on potato [3,14].
Previous studies have shown that host plants can significantly affect the life history parameters and population dynamics of P. solenopsis [36,37,38,39] and have a significant impact on Aenasius bambawalei (Girault, 1915) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), an efficient solitary endo-parasitoid of this pest, described from India and possibly accidentally introduced into that country along with its host pest [40].
In our study, tomato, potato and eggplant were all found to be suitable hosts for the pest. The theory suggests that the most appropriate host plant for a polyphagous insect pest should allow shorter APOP and TPOP and higher fecundity, net reproductive rate (R0) and finite rate of increase (λ). Nabil [41] reported very high population densities of P. solenopsis in open field crops of eggplant in the Hihhya district, Sharqia Governorate in Egypt, reaching 328.75 individuals/leaf during September 2016. High densities of different instars of the pest reaching 150 individuals per plant were also recorded when reared on tomato in Israel by Spodek et al. [11]. In Egypt, natural infestation of the pest on tomato was also reported in Qalyubia governorate [42].
Significant differences in the selected parameters may be reasonably attributed to specific biochemical and morphological features and are in accordance with what has been reported in previous studies. For example, Shahid et al. [43] tested 25 different host plants for the development of P. solenopsis, correlating their morphological traits to the population dynamic of the pest. The authors concluded that eggplant is one of the most favorable host plants for the mealybug. Similarly, Nagrare et al. [44] found that the highest net reproductive rate was on cotton (284 females/female/generation) and the lowest was on tomato.
It is reasonable to hypothesize that the abundant glandular trichomes scattered on tomato leaves and stems play a key role in hampering the development of P. solenopsis. Nonetheless, it can conclude its cycle even on this plant, thus becoming another serious threat in the whole Mediterranean area.
The potential damage of P. solenopsis to eggplant and tomato can be particularly significant when they are grown in greenhouses, where it takes advantage of optimal climatic conditions and high host density. Indeed, Prasad et al. [45] observed the greatest fecundity and survival of crawlers at 30 °C and 32 °C, respectively, which are both common temperatures of protected crops in Mediterranean countries. This situation may lead to the overuse of chemicals in these crops while increasing plant protection costs and disrupting already implemented control schemes for other relevant pests. Furthermore, in Asia (in particular, Pakistan and India) P. solenopsis has already developed resistance to a wide range of insecticides including organophosphates, pyrethroids and neonicotinoids due to the continuous and severe use of these compounds on cotton cultivations [19,20,21]. This has severe consequences on efficient chemical control options of this pest on invaded host crops in the Mediterranean Basin since recent phylogenetic analyses performed in Tunisia and Italy revealed that the populations introduced in both countries most probably derive from Asian stock [16,17]. The data presented in this study may be a starting point for the development of suitable agroecological management strategies, such as those based on inter- and border cropping, with a view to progressive reduction of pest populations on cultivated crops and with the enhancement of biological control. These strategies are mostly needed in relation to reducing the application of synthetic insecticides as required by the European Union and by consumers.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plants

Plants used in this study were tomato (Variety ‘Dorra’), potato (Variety ‘Spunta’) and eggplant (Variety ‘Tizona’) grown in a glasshouse from seed (or tuber) in plastic trays (330 mm × 250 mm × 130 mm) in peat substrate, watered with tap water every two days and maintained under identical natural conditions without fertilizers and chemicals until they reached 150 mm height.

4.2. Insects

A laboratory rearing of P. solenopsis was initiated at the High Agronomic Institute of Chott-Mariem, Sousse, Tunisia, using specimens collected on Lantana camara L. (Verbenaceae) in Tunis, Tunisia, in spring 2022. The identity of specimens was confirmed using both morphological and molecular approaches [17]. Initially, the mealybug was reared for five generations on potato plants (Variety ‘Spunta’) obtained from tubers placed in plastic containers (330 mm × 250 mm × 130 mm) filled with fine sand. To avoid possible effects of host shifting during the experiments, two other colonies were set up using individuals reared on potato, on tomato and on eggplant. All colonies were maintained for five generations in a climatic chamber at 25 ± 2 °C, 60–70% RH and 16:8 h (L:D) photoperiod before their use in the bioassay.

4.3. Experimental Protocol

For each host plant (tomato, potato and eggplant), 50 plants were transplanted individually into plastic cups with 200 mL peat substrate. Peer cohorts of P. solenopsis were used to collect eggs and a single freshly laid egg (<1 h) was transferred to the central vein of an apical leaf using a fine soft paintbrush under a binocular microscope (Leica® MZ8, Leica Microsystems, Wetzlar, Germany). Plants bearing eggs were then incubated in a climatic cabinet (Scimmit, Shanghai Scimmit Technology, Shanghai, China) at 25 ± 1 °C temperature, 60 ± 5% relative humidity and 16:8 h (L:D) photoperiod. Plants were watered daily with tap water using a 50 mL volume syringe. The entire life cycle of each mealybug individual on each plant was monitored daily until its death. The moults during the larval stages were recorded by the presence of exuviae. Newly emerged adults were kept as couples to record the following parameters: egg incubation period, duration of each immature stage, pre-oviposition period, oviposition period, fecundity, post-oviposition period, adult sex and adult longevity.

4.4. Demographic Analyses

Collected data on the development and reproduction on each considered host plant were analyzed according to the age-stage two-sex life table theory as described by Chi and Liu [27] and Huang and Chi [46]. We calculated age-stage-specific survival rate (sxj: the probability that a newly laid egg will survive to age x and stage j), age-stage-specific fecundity (fxj: the mean fecundity of females at age x), age-specific survival rate (lx: the probability that a newly laid egg will survive to age x), and age-specific fecundity (mx: the mean fecundity of individuals at age x) (Supplementary Materials S1).
The means and standard errors of the life table parameters were estimated using the bootstrap method with a bootstrap number of m = 100,000 in order to ensure precise estimates [47]. TWOSEX-MSChart® [48] for Windows® (Version 2023.12.15) was used to construct and analyze age-stage two-sex life tables. A paired bootstrap test within TWOSEX-MSChart® was used to compare differences in developmental time, adult longevity, adult preoviposition period (APOP), total preoviposition period (TPOP), oviposition days and fecundity between treatments. The population parameters were also compared using the paired bootstrap test, based on the confidence interval of difference [47,49]. The p values of the paired bootstrap test were defined as follows: PTP, tomato to potato; PTE, tomato to eggplant; PPE, potato to eggplant.

4.5. Population Projection

The TIMING-MSChart® [50] program (Version 04/18/2024) was used to simulate population growth rate and the structure of each age-stage of P. solenopsis over a period of 90 days with an initial population of 10 eggs and without control.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants13101381/s1. References [51,52,53,54,55] are cited in the supplementary materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.A. and A.H.; methodology, K.A., B.C. and A.H.; software, K.A.; resources, B.C. and E.G.; data curation, K.A. and A.H; writing—original draft preparation, K.A.; writing—review and editing, A.H and E.G.; funding acquisition, E.G. and B.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by financial support of the project “Agroecology-inspired Strategies and Tools to Enhance Resilience and ecosystem services in tomato crop, ASTER”, Prima Section II 2021-MULTI-TOPIC, n°E73C22000240006. A.H. was the recipient of a postdoctoral grant from the Tunisian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR), through the Doctoral School “Agronomy and Environment” of the High Agronomic Institute of Chott-Mariem, University of Sousse.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Hsin Chi from the National Chung Hsing University of Taiwan for his genuine help and guidance in analyzing data using TWOSEX-MSChart® and TIMING-MSChart® softwares. We also thank Mohamed El Hady Saleck for his help in rearing the mealybug and assistance in conducting the assays. Authors would like also to thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions and remarks which substantially increased the quality of the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Charles, H.; Dukes, J.S. Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services. In Biological Invasions; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 217–237. [Google Scholar]
  2. Desneux, N.; Wajnberg, E.; Wyckhuys, K.A.G.; Burgio, G.; Arpaia, S.; Narváez-Vasquez, C.A.; González-Cabrera, J.; Catalán Ruescas, D.; Tabone, E.; Frandon, J.; et al. Biological invasion of European tomato crops by Tuta absoluta: Ecology, geographic expansion and prospects for biological control. J. Pest. Sci. 2010, 83, 197–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Desneux, N.; Han, P.; Mansour, R.; Arnó, J.; Brévault, T.; Campos, M.R.; Chailleux, A.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Karimi, J.; Konan, K.A.J.; et al. Integrated pest management of Tuta absoluta: Practical implementations across different world regions. J. Pest. Sci. 2022, 95, 17–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pellizzari, G.; Germain, J.-F. Scales (Hemiptera, Superfamily Coccoidea). Chapter 9.3. BioRisk 2010, 4, 475–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Miller, D.R.; Miller, G.L.; Watson, G.W. Invasive species of mealybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 2002, 104, 825–836. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fand, B.B.; Tonnang, H.E.Z.; Kumar, M.; Bal, S.K.; Singh, N.P.; Rao, D.V.K.N.; Kamble, A.L.; Nangare, D.D.; Minhas, P.S. Predicting the impact of climate change on regional and seasonal abundance of the mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) using temperature-driven phenology model linked to GIS. Ecol. Model. 2014, 288, 62–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, Y.; Watson, G.W.; Zhang, R. The potential distribution of an invasive mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis and its threat to cotton in Asia. Agric. For. Entomol. 2010, 12, 403–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tong, H.-J.; Ao, Y.; Li, Z.-H.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, M.-X. Invasion biology of the cotton mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley: Current knowledge and future directions. J. Integr. Agric. 2019, 18, 758–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Waqas, M.S.; Shi, Z.; Yi, T.-C.; Xiao, R.; Shoaib, A.A.; Elabasy, A.S.; Jin, D.-C. Biology, ecology, and management of cotton mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Pest. Manag. Sci. 2021, 77, 5321–5333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. El-Zahi Saber, E.-Z.; Safwat Abd El-Salam, A.; Samy Kamal Mohammad, K. The cotton mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) as a new menace to cotton in Egypt and its chemical control. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2016, 56, 111–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Spodek, M.; Ben-Dov, Y.; Mondaca, L.; Protasov, A.; Erel, E.; Mendel, Z. The cotton mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Israel: Pest status, host plants and natural enemies. Phytoparasitica 2018, 46, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Katbeh Bader, A.; Al-Jboory, I.J. First record of cotton mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley 1898 (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), from Saudi Arabia. EPPO Bull. 2020, 50, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Aroua, K.; Kaydan, M.B.; Ercan, C.; Biche, M. First Record of Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae) in Algeria. Entomol. News 2020, 129, 63–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bragard, C.; Dehnen-Schmutz, K.; Di Serio, F.; Gonthier, P.; Jacques, M.-A.; Jaques Miret, J.A.; Justesen, A.F.; Magnusson, C.S.; Milonas, P.; Navas-Cortes, J.A.; et al. Pest categorisation of Leptinotarsa decemlineata. EFSA J. 2020, 18, e06359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. El Aalaoui, M.; Sbaghi, M. First record of the mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) and its seven parasitoids and five predators in Morocco. EPPO Bull. 2021, 51, 299–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ricupero, M.; Biondi, A.; Russo, A.; Zappalà, L.; Mazzeo, G. The Cotton Mealybug Is Spreading along the Mediterranean: First Pest Detection in Italian Tomatoes. Insects 2021, 12, 675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Abbes, K.; Harbi, A.; Wanassi, T.; Ricupero, M.; Mazzeo, G.; Russo, A.; Biondi, A.; Zappalà, L.; Chermiti, B. The cotton mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) is spreading in North Africa: First report in Tunisia. Orient. Insects 2024, 58, 172–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fand, B.B.; Suroshe, S.S. The invasive mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley, a threat to tropical and subtropical agricultural and horticultural production systems—A review. Crop Prot. 2015, 69, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ahmad, M.; Akhtar, S. Development of resistance to insecticides in the invasive mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Pakistan. Crop Prot. 2016, 88, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Saddiq, B.; Shad, S.A.; Aslam, M.; Ijaz, M.; Abbas, N. Monitoring resistance of Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) to new chemical insecticides in Punjab, Pakistan. Crop Prot. 2015, 74, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nagrare, V.S.; Fand, B.B.; Chinna Babu Naik, V.; Naikwadi, B.; Deshmukh, V.; Sinh, D. Resistance development in Cotton mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) to insecticides from Organophosphate, Thiadiazines and Thiourea derivatives. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2020, 40, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shankarganesh, K.; Ricupero, M.; Sabtharishi, S. Field evolved insecticide resistance in the cotton mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis and its direct and indirect impacts on the endoparasitoid Aenasius arizonensis. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 16764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ibrahim, S.S. Study on cotton host plants of mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis (Tinsley) and efficiency release the predator Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) for its controlling on cotton plants in Egypt. J. Plant Prot. Pathol. 2018, 9, 247–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rezk, M.; Hassan, A.-N.T.; El-Deeb, M.F.; Shaarawy, N.; Dewer, Y. The impact of insecticides on the cotton mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis (Tinsley): Efficacy on potato, a new record of host plant in Egypt. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2019, 59, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Price, P.W. Insect Ecology; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  26. Birch, L.C. The intrinsic rate of natural increase of an insect population. J. Anim. Ecol. 1948, 17, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chi, H.; Liu, H. Two new methods for the study of insect population ecology. Bull. Inst. Zool. Acad. Sin. 1985, 24, 225–240. [Google Scholar]
  28. Chi, H. Life-Table Analysis Incorporating Both Sexes and Variable Development Rates Among Individuals. Environ. Entomol. 1988, 17, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chi, H.; You, M.S.; Atlihan, R.; Smith, C.L.; Kavousi, A.; Özgökçe, M.S.; Güncan, A.; Tuan, S.J.; Fu, J.W.; Xu, Y.Y.; et al. Age-Stage, two-sex life table: An introduction to theory, data analysis, and application. Entomol. Gen. 2020, 40, 103–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. El Aalaoui, M.; Sbaghi, M. Life cycle and population growth parameter analysis of the mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis on three new host plants. Arthropod-Plant Interact. 2022, 16, 437–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. El Aalaoui, M.; Sbaghi, M. Life table parameters and predation potential of the coccinellid Hyperaspis trifurcata, feeding on the invasive cactus scale Dactylopius opuntiae. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2023, 43, 2021–2031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gharekhani, G.; Salekebrahimi, H.; Chi, H. Demography of Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) reared on elicitor-treated tomato plants with an innovative comparison of projected population sizes and application of the multinomial theorem for population survival. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2023, 79, 4964–4976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bragard, C.; Di Serio, F.; Gonthier, P.; Jaques Miret, J.A.; Justesen, A.F.; Magnusson, C.S.; Milonas, P.; Navas-Cortes, J.A.; Parnell, S.; Potting, R.; et al. Pest categorisation of Phenacoccus solenopsis. EFSA J. 2021, 19, e06801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Zhou, A.; Lu, Y.; Zeng, L.; Xu, Y.; Liang, G. Effect of Host Plants on Honeydew Production of an Invasive Mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). J. Insect Behav. 2013, 26, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Plata, Á.; Gómez-Martínez, M.A.; Beitia, F.J.; Tena, A. Native ants facilitate the invasion by Delottococcus aberiae in Mediterranean citrus. J. Pest. Sci. 2024, 97, 255–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Arif, M.J.; Shahid, M.R.; Gogi, M.D.; Arshad, M.; Khan, M.A. Studies on biological parameters of an invasive mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsely (Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera) on different host plants under laboratory conditions. Acad. J. Entomol. 2013, 6, 55–60. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kedar, S.; Saini, R.; Ram, P. Suitability of different host plants for survival and development of solenopsis mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera). J. Entomol. Res. 2013, 37, 47–50. [Google Scholar]
  38. Çalışkan, A.F.; Kaydan, M.B.; Muştu, M.; Ulusoy, M.R. Demographic parameters and biological features of Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on four ornamental plants. Phytoparasitica 2016, 44, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dogar, A.M.; Ayyaz, M.; Abbas, N.; Shad, S.A.; Naeem, A. Effect of host plants on life history traits of Phenacoccus solenopsis (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2018, 38, 387–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Younas, H.; Razaq, M.; Farooq, M.O.; Saeed, R. Host plants of Phenacoccus solenopsis (Tinsley) affect parasitism of Aenasius bambawalei (Hayat). Phytoparasitica 2022, 50, 669–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nabil, H.A. Ecological studies on cotton mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae) on eggplant at Sharkia Governorate, Egypt. Egypt. Acad. J. Biol. Sci. A Entomol. 2017, 10, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ibrahim, S.S.; Abdelhalim Moharum, F.; Abd El-Ghany, N.M. The cotton mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) as a new insect pest on tomato plants in Egypt. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2015, 55, 48–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Shahid, M.R.; Arif, M.J.; Gogi, M.D.; Javed, N. Host-plant-preference and mortality analysis of Phenacoccus solenopsis in association with biochemical traits of different plant species. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2017, 19, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nagrare, V.S.; Naikwadi, B.; Deshmukh, V.; Kranthi, S. Biology and population growth parameters of the cotton mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), on five host plant species. Anim. Biol. 2018, 68, 333–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Prasad, Y.G.; Prabhakar, M.; Sreedevi, G.; Ramachandra Rao, G.; Venkateswarlu, B. Effect of temperature on development, survival and reproduction of the mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on cotton. Crop Prot. 2012, 39, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Huang, Y.-B.; Chi, H. Age-stage, two-sex life tables of Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae) with a discussion on the problem of applying female age-specific life tables to insect populations. Insect Sci. 2012, 19, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bradley, E.; Tibshirani, R.J. An introduction to the bootstrap. Monogr. Stat. Appl. Probab. 1993, 57, 158. [Google Scholar]
  48. Chi, H. TWOSEX-MSChart: A Computer Program for the Age-Stage, Two-Sex Life Table Analysis. 2023. Available online: http://140.120.197.173/Ecology/Download/TWOSEX-MSChart-setup.rar (accessed on 15 March 2024).
  49. Akköprü, E.P.; Atlıhan, R.; Okut, H.; Chi, H. Demographic Assessment of Plant Cultivar Resistance to Insect Pests: A Case Study of the Dusky-Veined Walnut Aphid (Hemiptera: Callaphididae) on Five Walnut Cultivars. J. Econ. Entomol. 2015, 108, 378–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Chi, H. TIMING-MSChart: A Computer Program for the Population Projection Based on Age-Stage, Two-Sex Life Table. 2023. Available online: http://140.120.197.173/Ecology/Download/TIMING-MSChart-exe.rar (accessed on 3 May 2024).
  51. Goodman, D. Optimal life histories, optimal notation, and the value of reproductive value. Am. Nat. 1982, 119, 803–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chi, H.; Su, H.-Y. Age-Stage, Two-Sex Life Tables of Aphidius gifuensis (Ashmead) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and its host Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Homoptera: Aphididae) with mathematical proof of the relationship between female fecundity and the net reproductive rate. Environ. Entomol. 2006, 35, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fisher, R.A.S. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK. [CrossRef]
  54. Huang, Y.B.; Chi, H. The age-stage, two-sex life table with an offspring sex ratio dependent on female age. J. Agric. For. 2011, 60, 337–345. [Google Scholar]
  55. Tuan, S.-J.; Lee, C.-C.; Chi, H. Population and damage projection of Spodoptera litura (F.) on peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) under different conditions using the age-stage, two-sex life table. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 805–813, Erratum in Pest. Manag. Sci. 2014, 7, 1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 13 01381 g001
Figure 1. Survival rate of different development stages of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants (25 ± 1 °C, 60 ± 5% RH and 16:8 h (L:D)).
Figure 1. Survival rate of different development stages of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants (25 ± 1 °C, 60 ± 5% RH and 16:8 h (L:D)).
Plants 13 01381 g001
Plants 13 01381 g002
Figure 2. Age-specific survival rate (lx), female age-specific fecundity (fx), age-specific fecundity (mx) and age-specific maternity (lx*mx) versus age of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants (25 ± 1 °C, 60 ± 5% RH and 16:8 h (L:D)).
Figure 2. Age-specific survival rate (lx), female age-specific fecundity (fx), age-specific fecundity (mx) and age-specific maternity (lx*mx) versus age of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants (25 ± 1 °C, 60 ± 5% RH and 16:8 h (L:D)).
Plants 13 01381 g002
Plants 13 01381 g003
Figure 3. Age-stage life expectancy of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants (25 ± 1 °C, 60 ± 5% RH and 16:8 h (L:D)).
Figure 3. Age-stage life expectancy of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants (25 ± 1 °C, 60 ± 5% RH and 16:8 h (L:D)).
Plants 13 01381 g003
Plants 13 01381 g004
Figure 4. Age-stage reproductive value of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants (25 ± 1 °C, 60 ± 5% RH and 16:8 h (L:D)).
Figure 4. Age-stage reproductive value of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants (25 ± 1 °C, 60 ± 5% RH and 16:8 h (L:D)).
Plants 13 01381 g004
Plants 13 01381 g005
Figure 5. Population growth predictions of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants.
Figure 5. Population growth predictions of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants.
Plants 13 01381 g005
Plants 13 01381 g006
Figure 6. The total adult size (Nt) of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants in time intervals (A) 10–30 d, (B) 50–60 d and (C) 80–90 d.
Figure 6. The total adult size (Nt) of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants in time intervals (A) 10–30 d, (B) 50–60 d and (C) 80–90 d.
Plants 13 01381 g006
Table 1. Developmental duration and adult longevity of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants (25 ± 1 °C, 60 ± 5% RH and 16:8 h (L:D)). Values are means ± standard errors. Means in a row followed by different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 using paired bootstrap test.
Table 1. Developmental duration and adult longevity of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants (25 ± 1 °C, 60 ± 5% RH and 16:8 h (L:D)). Values are means ± standard errors. Means in a row followed by different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 using paired bootstrap test.
Developmental Duration (Days)Host Plants
Tomato PotatoEggplant
Egg incubation 1 ± 0.00 a (n = 50)1 ± 0.00 a (n = 50)1 ± 0.00 a (n = 50)
First-instar nymph
Female4.8837 ± 0.1323 c (n = 27)5.5897 ± 0.1132 b (n = 28)6.1818 ± 0.1216 a (n = 23)
Male4.7142 ± 0.3619 b (n = 23)5.3636 ± 0.1511 b (n = 22)6.50 ± 0.4320 a (n = 27)
Second-instar nymph
Female4.7441 ± 0.1870 a (n = 26)4.8461 ± 0.1835 a (n = 26)4.7045 ± 0.1564 a (n = 23)
Male5.2857 ± 0.4755 b (n = 23)6.5454 ± 0.4103 a (n = 22)5.1666 ± 0.4819 b (n = 27)
Third-instar
Female nymph6.3023 ± 0.2688 b (n = 26)6.2820 ± 0.2084 b (n = 26)7.0909± 0.2417 a (n = 22)
Male pupa6.7142 ± 0.4751 a (n = 23)7.0909 ± 0.5436 a (n = 22)4.50 ± 0.2249 b (n = 27)
Total pre-adult
Female 16.9302 ± 0.3591 b (n = 26)17.7179 ± 0.2493 b (n = 26)18.9772 ± 0.2868 a (n = 22)
Male17.7142 ± 0.8108 b (n = 23)20.0000 ± 0.1899 a (n = 22)17.1666 ± 0.6044 b (n = 27)
Adult longevity
Female 21.0697 ± 0.3421 b (n = 26)19.8205 ± 0.1197 c (n = 26)24.1590 ± 0.5029 a (n = 22)
Male3.1428 ± 0.1437 b (n = 23)3.1818 ± 0.2248 b (n = 22)6.5000 ± 0.3457 a (n = 27)
Total life cycle
Female38.0000 ± 0.4319 b (n = 26)37.5384 ± 0.2466 b (n = 26)43.1363 ± 0.5683 a (n = 22)
Male20.8571 ± 0.8877 b (n = 23)23.1818 ± 0.3234 a (n = 22)23.6666 ± 0.7670 a (n = 27)
Table 2. Fecundity, adult preoviposition period (APOP), total preoviposition period (TPOP) and oviposition days of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants (25 ± 1 °C, 60 ± 5% RH and 16:8 h (L:D)). Values are means ± standard errors. Means in a row followed by different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 using paired bootstrap test.
Table 2. Fecundity, adult preoviposition period (APOP), total preoviposition period (TPOP) and oviposition days of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants (25 ± 1 °C, 60 ± 5% RH and 16:8 h (L:D)). Values are means ± standard errors. Means in a row followed by different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 using paired bootstrap test.
Parameters Host Plants
Tomato PotatoEggplant
APOP (days)6.3953 ± 0.2162 b5.2051± 0.1964 c10.0909 ± 0.5255 a
TPOP (days)23.3256 ± 0.405 b22.9222 ± 0.3091 b29.0682 ± 0.5807 a
Fecundity (eggs)155.6046 ± 11.9904 c244.9230 ± 9.7554 b276.5000 ± 10.7814 a
Oviposition (days)12.7209 ± 0.2469 b13.6410 ± 0.1725 a10.8409 ± 0.1109 c
Table 3. Net reproductive rate (R0), the intrinsic rate of increase (r), finite rate of increase (λ) and generation time (T) of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants (25 ± 1 °C, 60 ± 5% RH and 16:8 h (L:D)). Values are means ± standard errors. Means in a row followed by different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 using the paired bootstrap test.
Table 3. Net reproductive rate (R0), the intrinsic rate of increase (r), finite rate of increase (λ) and generation time (T) of Phenacoccus solenopsis on different host plants (25 ± 1 °C, 60 ± 5% RH and 16:8 h (L:D)). Values are means ± standard errors. Means in a row followed by different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 using the paired bootstrap test.
ParametersHost Plants
TomatoPotatoEggplant
R0133.82 ± 12.7829 c191.04 ± 16.23395 b243.32 ± 15.83068 a
r0.1731 ± 0.00424 b0.1860 ± 0.0039 a0.1696 ± 0.00364 b
λ1.1889 ± 0.005042 a1.2044 ± 0.00469 b1.1848 ± 0.00431 a
T28.2854 ± 0.4532 b28.2371 ± 0.3660 b32.3899 ± 0.5958 a
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abbes, K.; Harbi, A.; Guerrieri, E.; Chermiti, B. Using Age-Stage Two-Sex Life Tables to Assess the Suitability of Three Solanaceous Host Plants for the Invasive Cotton Mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley. Plants 2024, 13, 1381. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13101381

AMA Style

Abbes K, Harbi A, Guerrieri E, Chermiti B. Using Age-Stage Two-Sex Life Tables to Assess the Suitability of Three Solanaceous Host Plants for the Invasive Cotton Mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley. Plants. 2024; 13(10):1381. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13101381

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abbes, Khaled, Ahlem Harbi, Emilio Guerrieri, and Brahim Chermiti. 2024. "Using Age-Stage Two-Sex Life Tables to Assess the Suitability of Three Solanaceous Host Plants for the Invasive Cotton Mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley" Plants 13, no. 10: 1381. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13101381

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop