Next Article in Journal
Wavelength-Specific Behavior of the Western Flower Thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis): Evidence for a Blue-Green Chromatic Mechanism
Next Article in Special Issue
Automatic Field Detection of Western Corn Rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera; Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) with a New Probe
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Mixed Infections of Gut Parasites Lotmaria passim and Nosema ceranae on the Lifespan and Immune-related Biomarkers in Apis mellifera
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Biology and Management of Pest Diabrotica Species in South America

1
ARS-SABCL/FuEDEI (Foundation for the Study of Invasive Species), Hurlingham B1686EFA, Argentina
2
EMBRAPA Agropecuaria Oeste, Dourados, Mato Grosso de Sul Caixa-postal 449, Brazil
3
Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata B1900FWA, Argentina
4
EMBRAPA Clima Temperado, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul Caixa-Postal 403, Brazil
5
Centro Universitario Moura Lacerda, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo 14076-510, Brazil
6
USDA-ARS Invasive Insect Biocontrol & Behavior Laboratory, Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, MD 10300, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2020, 11(7), 421; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11070421
Submission received: 27 May 2020 / Revised: 1 July 2020 / Accepted: 4 July 2020 / Published: 8 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Corn Rootworm: Biology, Ecology, Behavior and Integrated Management)

Abstract

:
The genus Diabrotica has over 400 described species, the majority of them neotropical. However, only three species of neotropical Diabrotica are considered agricultural pests: D. speciosa, D. balteata, and D. viridula. D. speciosa and D. balteata are polyphagous both as adults and during the larval stage. D. viridula are stenophagous during the larval stage, feeding essentially on maize roots, and polyphagous as adults. The larvae of the three species are pests on maize, but D. speciosa larvae also feed on potatoes and peanuts, while D. balteata larvae feed on beans and peanuts. None of these species express a winter/dry season egg diapause, displaying instead several continuous, latitude-mediated generations per year. This hinders the use of crop rotation as a management tool, although early planting can help in the temperate regions of the distribution of D. speciosa. The parasitoids of adults, Celatoria bosqi and Centistes gasseni, do not exert much control on Diabrotica populations, or show potential for inundative biocontrol plans. Management options are limited to insecticide applications and Bt genetically modified (GM) maize. Other techniques that show promise are products using Beauveria bassiana and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora, semiochemical attractants for monitoring purposes or as toxic baits, and plant resistance.

1. General Biology of South American Pest Diabrotica

The genus Diabrotica has over 400 described species [1], the majority of them neotropical, but only 7 species, plus six subspecies, are considered agricultural pests in the Americas [2]. Of these, only three species are considered agricultural pests in South America: D. speciosa (Germar) with subspecies speciosa and vigens, D. balteata (LeConte), and D. viridula (F.) (Figure 1). The genus Diabrotica is divided into three species groups: virgifera, fucata, and signifera [3,4]. However, studies on South American virgifera group species suggest that these groups are not as well defined as previously thought [5,6]. D. speciosa and D. balteata are in the fucata group, which is the group with the largest number of species. The species in this group that have been studied are polyphagous both as adults and during the larval stage. Another characteristic of the North American pest Diabrotica of the fucata species group is that they overwinter as adults and lack resistant stages to deal with harsh climatic conditions [2]. D. viridula is in the virgifera group, the same clade of the Northern, Western, and Mexican corn rootworms (Diabrotica barberi, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera, and Diabrotica virgifera zeae, respectively). The larvae of the North American species in the virgifera group feed exclusively on Poaceae [7], although the host range has been observed or tested for only a few of the species in the group [8]. The North American pest species in the virgifera species group are univoltine, or sometimes semivoltine, and possess diapausing eggs that allow them to overwinter in temperate climates or survive dry seasons in the subtropics [9,10], both situations during which the adult cannot find sustenance or survive the extreme conditions.
D. speciosa is distributed throughout South America, from agricultural patches in the temperate Patagonian steppes to the tropics, with the exception of Chile, and up to altitudes of over 2500 m above sea level [2,11] (Figure 2). It is the best studied Diabrotica species in South America due to its impact on many crops. The adult has over 132 recorded host species, in 24 different plant families [11, and literature therein]. Larval hosts are not as well known, but D. speciosa has at least five confirmed larval hosts: maize (Zea mays L.), wheat (Triticum spp.), Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense Persoon), peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.), and potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Another four plant species hosted full development in the laboratory [11,12,13,14,15]. However, the fact that larvae can develop on plant species in four families of three different orders suggests that there could be many more larval hosts that simply have not been discovered because of the hypogeous habit of the larva.
D. speciosa is documented in most crops in South America, but is considered mainly a horticultural pest as an adult, and a pest of potato, maize, and peanuts as larva [11,13,16]. Yet these generalizations are not without exceptions. In Brazil, this species is considered a pest of maize as a larva, and a minor pest as an adult as well [17,18]. It is also regarded as an important pest of potato during both the adult and larval stages, although this depends heavily on the cultivar [19]. In addition, the adult is also regarded as an important pest of seedlings and young plants of some extensive crops, such as soybeans, beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), cotton, sunflower, maize, tobacco, wheat, and canola [20,21,22], and, curiously, of table grapes [23] (Table 1).
D. balteata is found from subtropical North America through Central America and Caribbean islands including Cuba, Hispaniola, and Puerto Rico, to South America, although its distribution in South America is limited to Venezuela and Colombia [2,24], where it can occur at altitudes ranging from 0 to 2000 m [25]. However, there is insufficient data to infer species distribution patterns in either country. The adult of D. balteata also has an extremely wide range of host plants, as it has been documented on over 140 plant species [26]. There is a more conservative estimate of 50 species in 23 families, with a preference for plants in the Cucurbitaceae, Rosaceae, Fabaceae, and Brassicaceae [27]. The D. balteata adult is considered a pest on squash (Cucurbita spp., Cucurbitaceae), several bean species (P. vulgaris, Glycine max, Mucuna pruriens, and Vigna unguiculata, Fabaceae), lettuce (Lactuca sativa, Asteraceae), sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum, Poaceae), and potato [28]. Adults are also implicated in the transmission of the tomato brown rugose fruit virus (Tobamovirus, ToBRFV) to P. vulgaris [29], and other viruses of P. vulgaris and calapo (Calopogonium mucunoides Desv.) [30,31]. Larval damage is reported only from Colombia, where this species is known to attack beans, but as considered a minor problem [32], maize, on which it can be locally problematic [33,34], and peanuts, on which it is considered among the 10–12 worst pests in Colombia [35] (Table 1). The larva has also been reported to attack sweet potato in the USA [36], although not in South America. Yet, the fact that these hosts are also from three families in three orders suggests that there could be many more larval hosts as well. In addition, phylogenetic studies indicate D. speciosa and D. balteata are sister clades [37].
D. viridula is distributed from Mexico to northern Argentina, and apparently absent in Uruguay and Chile, except on Easter Island, where it was introduced [2,13,38] (Figure 3). Like D. balteata, its distribution is primarily tropical and subtropical. The D. viridula adult is considered a minor pest of beans in Peru [39], while the larva is considered locally important on maize in Central America and Peru [40]. In greenhouse tests, both the larvae and the adults of this species were able to transmit maize chlorotic mottle virus (MCMV) to maize, and they are assumed to be one of its vectors in the field [41]. D. viridula is also assumed to be an important, albeit new, pest of maize roots in Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil [11,42], but its damage cannot be differentiated from that of D. speciosa. Studies to clarify what proportion of the damage is owed to each species (e.g., collections of larvae directly in the field) have not been done. The larva has been found feeding on maize roots only, and in the laboratory, it developed successfully on wheat as well, but not on any of the species tested from outside the Poaceae, suggesting it is stenophagous during the larval stage [2,43]. As an adult it is polyphagous, albeit reduced to fewer hosts than D. speciosa and D. balteata, as it has been recorded only on 21 plant species in the Poacae, Cucurbitaceae, and Asteraceae [11] (Table 1). Yet, similarities with the North American species in the virgifera group end here, as D. viridula eggs do not diapause. This species was reared in the laboratory for many generations, and the eggs never expressed any delay in hatching at optimal developmental temperature (8 ± 1 days at 25 ± 1 °C), regardless of previous photoperiod and temperature conditions (0 ± 1, 5 ± 1, 13 ± 1 °C; 10:14, 12:12, 14:10 h (L:D)) [13,43,44]. Eggs from field-collected adults, including overwintering adults, expressed no delay in hatching either [44].
Evidence indicates that the three South American pest Diabrotica overwinter as adults, are multivoltine, and do not have diapausing eggs. A reproductive diapause has been observed for D. speciosa, at least for the populations from the temperate and higher subtropical areas, but the fact that it could be overridden by manipulating temperature and light hours suggests it may not exist in the lower latitudes [44].

2. Control of South American Diabrotica

As the North American corn rootworms in the virgifera species group overwinter as diapausing eggs, are univoltine, and have a narrow larval host range limited to maize and a few grasses, their life cycle is tightly coupled to the phenology of one or very few annual host species. This provides opportunities for the use of different management strategies to reduce damage levels on susceptible crops, such as crop rotation and manipulation of sowing dates [45,46], expected density functions based on preceding density data [47], and anticipation of adult appearance through degree-day models [48]. Also, as the eggs are found anywhere in the soil from before the crop is planted, different tillage techniques could be applied to hinder the larvae from reaching the roots, for instance, compacting the soil between rows, thus affecting neonate larval movement [49]. Furthermore, factors behind the recommencement and completion of embryonic development after winter in univoltine Diabrotica are fairly well understood, so it is possible to estimate a “fixed point” (or interval) for the conclusion of embryonic development of the egg bank laid during the previous season in any given area [50]. However, none of these options have been developed for multivoltine species.
The field biology of the multivoltine species of the North American pest Diabrotica is also relatively well understood. Yet, in contrast to the univoltine species, predicting the incidence of the multivoltine species is not easily achieved. The only predictive tool of which the authors are aware has been used to calculate the probable damage of Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardi Barber on peanuts. This index used data such as soil texture, soil drainage class, planting date, cultivar resistance, and field history of rootworm damage to determine when to apply soil insecticides. Although the index recommended insecticide applications for 98.5% of the fields that actually needed insecticide treatment, it also recommended treatment for over 50% of fields that did not need it [51].
Although it is certain that the South American pest Diabrotica are multivoltine, seasonal reproductive patterns are not well known for these species. Soil and air temperatures were used in a linear degree-day model in laboratory and greenhouse experiments, to predict the occurrence of adults of D. speciosa [52]. The authors found that soil and air temperatures provided a significantly different prediction of insect occurrence than those observed experimentally. However, the prediction of occurrence based on soil temperature was more accurate than when the air temperature was used. One study in Argentina based on teneral collections in different regions suggests that the single most important determinant for the emergence of D. speciosa adults was weekly average temperatures above 13 °C. Due to this, in the temperate distribution areas of D. speciosa, there could be around three generations a year, and in subtropical regions, no fewer than five. However, no obvious or discrete voltinism pattern could be observed, expressing, to all practical effects, continuous generations [53]. What is known of the reproductive biology of the other two pest species suggests the same may be expected for them. Under the circumstances, it may be feasible to predict the appearance of a first generation after winter, in the areas where larval development might be temperature-limited, but such prediction may not be accurate enough to calculate planting dates, and certainly not apt to determine predictable cohorts. The practical implications of this study were that the life history pattern of this pest seems to leave few management alternatives. In the temperate regions of this species’ distribution, early planting of maize could ensure that the first generations of larvae encounter more mature, and thus less susceptible stages of the crop. Other than this, the seasonal dispersion and unpredictability of D. speciosa outbreaks suggest that the only pre-emptive action available to protect maize crops from this pest is to plant Bt maize [53].
As mentioned above, the damage on maize from D. speciosa larval feeding cannot be differentiated from that of D. viridula, so control measures implemented for the control of D. speciosa larvae apply to D. viridula as well (Figure 4). In addition, the vast majority of references to research on Diabrotica spp. control in South America apply to D. speciosa, or are general for several agricultural pests.

2.1. Chemical Control

Most control efforts in agriculture in South America are aimed at foliar pests and stem borers. There are published recommendations for treatment thresholds based on adult Diabrotica sampling protocols and foliar damage rates for beans and soybeans, respectively [54,55]. Yet, some control measures for root-feeders have been attempted, mainly seed treatments, in-furrow spraying, and granular pesticide applications [56,57]. There are no published calculations of the input of pesticides used for maize, beans, and potato, but they are generally considered to be high [58]. In Brazil there are 129 pesticides registered for D. speciosa in maize, potatoes, and beans, including foliar sprays, in-furrow, seed treatments, and four biological products based on Beauveria bassiana and one based on Heterorhabditis bacteriophora [58] (Table 1).
References for chemical control of Diabrotica in Argentina, Peru, and Uruguay follow more or less the same tendency of recommending several broad spectrum pesticides for adult control: chlorpyrifos, methomyl, other carbamates, fenitrothion, and several pyrethroids [59,60]. We have not found references to chemical control of larvae, and in fact concern for larval damage from Diabrotica is relatively recent, and all root-damaging insects are combined insofar as treatment actions are concerned. Their control has been trusted essentially to seed treatments with carbamates, neonicotinoids such as clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and imidacloprid, recently combined with diamides (cyantraniliprole and chlorantraniliprole), and genetically modified (GM) maize [61,62] (Table 1). However, seed treatments have been reported to be inefficient ways of controlling D. speciosa larvae on maize in Brazil [63]. Several authors reported that the most effective treatments are liquid in-furrow applications with organophosphates and phenylpyrazole insecticides in maize [64,65], and neonicotinoids for potatoes [66]. Granular applications also showed promise, but are not recommended due to technical limitations related to the cost and efficiency of granular applicators, and toxicity risks [67]. Finally, silicon applications have been reported to help decrease adult damage from D. speciosa and Liriomyza spp. (Diptera: Agromyzidae), leaf miners in organic potatoes [68].
Insecticides that interfere with the development of immature forms of insects (insect growth regulators (IGR)) can also cause a sterilizing effect on adult Coleoptera, affecting their fecundity and egg viability [69,70]. D. speciosa adults fed bean leaves treated with the IGR lufenuron showed a significant reduction in fertility and egg viability [71,72]. This deleterious effect on the progeny might reduce their biotic potential in the field, without using soil treatments (Table 1), although this has yet to be confirmed.
References to the evolution of insecticide resistance in South American Diabrotica are absent in the literature. However, this does not mean that it does not occur, but perhaps that it has not been studied.

2.2. Genetically Modified Crops

GM crops are one of the most widespread options for insect management in South America. GM maize, cotton, and soya are widely planted in Brazil and Argentina, the second and third countries with the largest productions of GM crops in the world, respectively, after the USA [73]. GM maize containing the Cry3Bb1 gene has been available in both countries since 2010 [57]. Up to 90% of the maize sown in Brazil is GM [57], and 96% in Argentina [73], mostly for control of Lepidoptera. Field tests showed that root damage levels were, without exception, lower than economic threshold, while yield was 2 to 5% higher than that of susceptible maize of the same variety [57]. Several lines of maize containing the Cry3Bb1 and the Cry1Ab genes were tested in greenhouse feeding tests with D. speciosa in Argentina in 2004. A 15-stage rating system was applied, which revealed that both events afforded some protection from larval damage compared to that seen in their conventional near-isolines. In the tests, however, the lines with the Cry3Bb1 gene suffered significantly lower damage levels (Cabrera Walsh, unpublished). Other countries in South America show a similar pattern, such as Paraguay (virtually 100% of its maize, [74]), and Uruguay, where there are no official data, but the area cultivated with GM maize is estimated at 86% [75]. This situation is not observed in Colombia, with only 31% of its maize crop being GM [76], Peru, where there is a moratorium on GM crops until 2021 [77], or Bolivia, where GM maize has recently been approved for planting, but its level of adoption remains unreported [78] (Table 1).
A new Bt protein, aimed especially for the control of D. speciosa larvae, was made available to maize growers during the 2013–2014 season, especially in south-central Brazil. This transgenic cultivar contained two Bt proteins expressed in the aerial parts aimed at caterpillars, and another specific protein (Cry3Bb1) for the control of D. speciosa larvae. Silva et al. [79] evaluated the efficiency of the Cry3Bb1 protein present in maize for the control of D. speciosa larvae, confirming higher productivity than that of the susceptible maize, and fewer larvae in the rhizosphere. Gallo [80] also evaluated the efficacy of corn genotypes that express the Cry3Bb1 protein for the control of D. speciosa larvae, and reported that both genotypes tested were effective in reducing corn root damage compared to that of other genotypes free of this toxin.
Potatoes expressing both the Cry3A and Cry1Ia1 genes were developed, field tested, and deemed to be effective to control D. speciosa [81]. However, these potato varieties were never commercialized.

2.3. Plant Resistance

Damage of D. speciosa on potatoes can be locally severe, both from adult damage to the aerial parts, and larval damage to the roots and tubers [82]. Work has been done to promote natural resistance in potato. This can come from chemical defenses, such as leptins (which are insecticidal peptides) and natural glycoalkaloids, which can confer resistance to both adults and larvae. Furthermore, the density and type of trichomes expressed by the plant can influence adult feeding behavior. These defense mechanisms can be selected from different cultivars, or incorporated from different species of wild potatoes [82,83,84].
In South Carolina (USA), sweet potatoes have been evaluated for D. balteata resistance [85]. In Florida (USA), where D. balteata is a key pest of lettuce, resistance has been evaluated based on the effective expression of latex upon injury [86,87]. Beans can also be selected for trichome expression to confer defoliation resistance to many pests, not only Diabrotica spp. [88,89].
Native resistance in maize to South American Diabrotica has not been tested, but it should be explored given the high number of native maize varieties in South America. Experiments in the US indicate that some maize genotypes expressed native antibiosis that reduced D. virgifera virgifera feeding significantly, as compared to that in the more susceptible genotypes. Damage was still higher than for a control GM maize, but larval development was not significantly different between the GM control and the more resistant maize genotypes [90] (Table 1).
Although not actually a form of plant resistance, intercropping shows some promise as a management option as well. There is some evidence of reduced incidence and damage from several bean pests, including Diabrotica sp., on P. vulgaris, based on intercropping with sugar cane in Colombia [91]. Intercropping beans with banana, maize, and other crops has shown mixed, although often favorable results in Central America [92,93] (Table 1).

2.4. Biological Control

In spite of the large number of species in the Diabrotica genus, and how widespread several of them are, only five species of parasitoids are known for the whole genus [94,95]. This is not the result of a lack of survey efforts, since many entomologists have surveyed for parasitoids and pathogens for many years throughout the Americas, and only one new species was detected in 60 years ([94], and literature therein). The scarcity of parasitoids of adults in the genus has been hypothesized to be due to the accumulation of cucurbitacins in fatty tissues [96,97]. These triterpenes are frequent in the Cucurbitaceae, common feeding hosts of adults in the genus, and are known to have antifeedant properties, but act as feeding stimulants for Diabrotica spp. [98,99]. There are no references of predators or parasitoids of larvae of South American species of Diabrotica [94]. However, based on the wide range of predators detected for D. virgifera virgifera in North America [100,101], it is to be expected that there are egg and larval predators of South American Diabrotica as well, which are yet to be discovered. Diabrotica virgifera virgifera larvae were found to have potent hemolymph defenses against predators [102,103], which may also be present in other Diabrotica spp.
Two adult parasitoid species, Centistes gasseni (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and Celotoria bosqi (Diptera: Tachinidae), are known to parasitize D. speciosa and D. viridula, but with extremely low incidences in the latter. Celatoria compressa (Diptera: Tachinidae) is known to parasitize D. balteata in North and Central America, with no records for South America [104,105,106,107]. Other than these, at least 10 generalist predators have been recorded for adult D. speciosa [108].
Natural parasitism levels in D. speciosa have been reported between 1 and 28%, and on rare occasions over 30% [105,106]. Furthermore, the higher levels of parasitoidism are always recorded toward the end of the growing season, when most of the crop damage is done, suggesting that natural control levels are of minor importance to pest management [108]. It seems unlikely that biological control with macro-organisms will provide any significant relief to agriculture, or to have much potential at this stage for inundative biocontrol plans, given their low reproductive rate, comparatively long development, and dependence on laboratory-reared adults. However, new advances in parasitoid rearing could change this situation in the future [109].
Biological control with pathogens and nematodes offers a different outlook, with several promising laboratory and greenhouse results. Several strains of Beauveria bassiana, B. brongniartii (Hypocreales: Cordycipitaceae), and Metarhizium anisopliae (Hypocreales: Clavicipitaceae) were effective in controlling Diabrotica virgifera virgifera larvae for up to 21 days after application [110]. Similar results have been obtained for South American species. In Brazil, the microbial control of D. speciosa larvae with entomopathogenic fungi or nematodes is considered to have great potential because the soil is a relatively stable environment in terms of temperature and humidity, especially in no-till farming [111]. Argentine strains of M. anisopliae and B. bassiana killed third instars of D. speciosa in the laboratory [112]. Brazilian strains of Isaria fumosorosea (Hypocreales: Clavicipitaceae) and Purpureocillium lilacinum (Hypocreales: Ophiocordycipitaceae) killed eggs of these species, also in the laboratory [113]. Twenty strains of entomopathogic fungi (B. bassiana, M. anisopliae, and P. lilacinum) were colonized as endophytes in tobacco from northern Argentina. However, feeding tests on D. speciosa adults with the treated plants showed no significant differences with endophyte-free plants [114] (Table 1).
A few studies have also been translated to field conditions for biological control of D. speciosa in production systems [113,115]. Promising results were obtained with the strain of B. bassiana ESALQ PL63, used in seed treatments, which decreased the defoliation caused by D. speciosa adults in beans for more than three weeks after seeding [116]. Similar results were obtained in maize when the soil was treated with Pseudomonas (Pseudomonadales: Pseudomonadaceae) [117] and Bacillus pumilus [118].
Rhabditid nematodes (Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae) have been studied to control corn rootworms for decades, often with promising results. In the field, Heterorhabditis bacteriophora Poinar (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae) was as effective as tefluthrin in controlling Diabrotica virgifera virgifera in corn crop [119] and with a long residual action in the soil [120,121]. Seventeen native and exotic entomopathogenic nematode isolates (Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae) were tested against D. speciosa under laboratory and greenhouse conditions in Brazil on eggs, third (last) instars, and pupae. High mortality rates were obtained with Heterorhabditis sp. RSC01 and JPM04, Steinernema glaseri, and Heterorhabditis amazonensis on larvae and pupae, while eggs were unaffected [121]. These nematodes are considered to have great potential to control D. speciosa in irrigated maize and potatoes [122] (Table 1).
Maize roots attract entomopathogenic nematodes with (E)-β-caryophyllene when fed upon by D. balteata and other Diabrotica, and production of this chemical is enhanced by certain root-colonizing bacteria [123]. Furthermore, Jaffuel et al. [120] have shown that Heterorhabditis bacteriophora, encapsulated in durable alginate-based beads, effectively controlled D. balteata larvae in greenhouse tests.
Mermithidae have been cited quite often from D. speciosa adults [95,124,125] as well as D. balteata [126], but they are generally considered to be too difficult to mass rear, so are probably not feasible biocontrol agents [122].

2.5. Semiochemicals

D. speciosa females exhibited calling behavior similar to that described for Diabrotica virgifera virgifera [127,128]. Nardi [129] studied the sexual behavior of D. speciosa, observing mating from the third day after the emergence of the females. Mating was concentrated from 6 p.m. to midnight. Based on these studies, it became evident that the sexual behavior of D. speciosa was well defined, and that sexual attraction was probably mediated by a sexual pheromone produced by females. Yellow plastic cups coated with an adhesive and baited with females, especially virgin females, attracted males. Males of different age or reproductive state enclosed in the same cups did not attract females nor males [130]. Y-tube olfactometer and GC-EAG tests showed that males of D. speciosa were attracted by volatile compounds emitted by females. However, this compound has not been identified yet. Male volatiles were not attractive to either sex [128].
The female-produced sex pheromone for D. balteata is (R,R) 6,12-dimethylpentadecan-2-one [131,132]. Although stereospecific syntheses have been published [133,134,135], the racemic mixture is attractive, based on the single active stereoisomer [132]. It was attractive to males in the field in South Carolina (USA) and potentially useful for monitoring and management [136], and is commercially available in the USA [137].
The floral compound 1,2-dimethoxybenzene, one of the main floral volatiles of Cucurbita maxima, was found attractive to D. speciosa adults. Traps baited with TIC (1,2,4-trimethoxybenzene + indole + trans-cinnamaldehyde) and VIP (veratrole + indole + phenylacetaldehyde) also attracted D. speciosa adults, but less effectively [138]. Although 1,2-dimethoxybenzene is a very abundant and well-known floral component, it had not been reported as an attractant for Diabrotica spp. before, suggesting D. speciosa has a unique response pattern for floral volatiles [130]. Ensuing studies showed that the attractiveness of this compound was quite specific, as none of the analogs tested were attractive to adults [139].
Olfactometer tests with seedlings have shown that CO2 and unidentified host specific root compounds from maize and oat seedlings were attractive to D. speciosa larvae. Wheat, beans, and soybean seedlings also elicited a response, albeit less vigorous [140]. Johnson and Gregory [141] reported that CO2 is involved in general orientation, while specific compounds are involved in fine orientation toward the host plant roots. In any case, Nardi [129] argued that D. speciosa larvae have a very limited capacity for movement and host location, and it is the gravid female that chooses the host plants, suggesting there may not be much of a future for D. speciosa management in larval attractants. Regardless, this information could be useful in future research on chemical communication and development of management techniques for this species [142], but to date, no pheromones or floral attractants have been synthesized for practical uses.
As mentioned above, there are many references to the attractant and/or arrestant effects of cucurbitacins to adult Diabrotica spp. Several pest management tactics have been implemented based on the phagostimulatory effect of cucurbitacins on diabroticine beetles. These include lacing bitter cucurbit roots or fruit with an insecticide [128,143,144], using the roots or fruits in traps for monitoring and collecting Luperini [10,145,146,147,148], bitter cucurbit juice formulations combined with fungal pathogens [149], and in toxic baits [150,151,152,153,154,155]. Cucurbitacins have also been included as baits in traps for monitoring purposes [10,145,147,156,157].
Although it is clear that cucurbitacins are phagostimulants, there were contradictory reports as to them being volatile kairomones as well (see [147] for a full discussion on the subject). The difference is that volatile kairomones have the power to attract the recipient from a distance, whereas arrestants cause the recipient to remain only after the individual has made contact with the compound. These characteristics potentially provide different applications, because whereas an arrestant in a toxic bait can drive the target insect to ingest the insecticide, it will not attract it from a distance, precluding its use in traps. Kairomones, on the other hand can serve both purposes if they are phagostimulants as well, as is the case with cucurbitacins. Field experiments in Argentina showed that only males of D. speciosa were attracted from a distance to cucurbitacins (ca. 20 m), whereas for females these compounds acted only as arrestants, and to a lesser degree than for males [11,148]. This indicates that control or monitoring devices reliant on distance attraction to bitter cucurbit extracts would function exclusively on D. speciosa males. However, the wide dispersal of a toxic bait based on cucurbitacins promoted encounters and control of both sexes within the treated area, without any significant non-target effects [155,158] (Table 1).

3. Conclusions

Diabrotica management in South America has been stagnated for several years. Apart from insecticide applications, the major innovation of applicable use of the last 30 years has been the introduction of GM maize. However, other techniques that show promise must continue to be explored, such as the use of toxic baits with semiochemical attractants to suppress adult populations and for monitoring purposes, IGR insecticides aimed at adults to reduce their progeny, development of plant resistance, and biological control using Heterorhabditis nematodes and entomopathogenic fungus against larvae. Insecticide + cucurbitacin baits also deserve a special mention, because this combination has proved to be an effective technique that probably warrants further development.
Pest Diabrotica in South America are widely regarded as important, but usually are not differentiated from other foliar pests or root-feeders when it comes to management. Farmers do not identify them among the worst pests, and seldom deploy specific control measures for these beetles, except for potatoes in Brazil, where producers consider D. speciosa to be the main pest. Yet, the actual impact of the larvae of D. speciosa and D. viridula, especially on maize, may not be properly assessed, and until that is done, we cannot be sure of the real importance of these pests.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation and conceptualization, G.C.W.; validation, investigation, data curation, writing—review and editing, G.C.W., C.J.Á., N.C., D.E.N., A.d.S.P. and D.C.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Joseph Spencer and Lance Meinke for inviting us to prepare this review and Paulo Lanzetta, Dirceu Gassen, and Stephen Cresswell for letting us use their photographs.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Derunkov, A.; Konstantinov, A. Taxonomic changes in the genus Diabrotica Chevrolat (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae): Results of a synopsis of North and Central America Diabrotica species. Zootaxa 2013, 3686, 301–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Krysan, J.L. Introduction: Biology, distribution, and identification of pest Diabrotica. In Methods for the Study of Pest Diabrotica, 1st ed.; Krysan, J.L., Miller, T.A., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  3. Wilcox, J.A. Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae: Luperini: Diabroticina; Pars. 78, Fasc. 2. In Coleopterum Catalogus Supplementa, 1st ed.; Wilcox, J.A., Ed.; Uitgeverij Dr. W. Junk’s: Gravenhage, The Netherlands, 1972; pp. 296–343. [Google Scholar]
  4. Krysan, J.L.; Smith, R.F. Systematics of the virgifera species group of Diabrotica (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae). Entomography 1987, 5, 375–484. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cabrera, N.; Sosa Gómez, D.; Micheli, A. A morphological and molecular characterization of a new species of Diabrotica (Coeloptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae). Zootaxa 2008, 1922, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cabrera, N.; Cabrera Walsh, G. Diabrotica collicola (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a new species of leaf beetle from Argentina. Discussion and key to some similar species of the Diabrotica virgifera group. Zootaxa 2010, 2683, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Branson, T.F.; Krysan, J.L. Feeding and oviposition behavior and life cycle strategies of Diabrotica: An evolutionary view with implications for pest management. Environ. Entomol. 1981, 10, 826–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Clark, T.L.; Hibbard, B.E. Comparison of nonmaize hosts to support western corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) larval biology. Environ. Entomol. 2004, 33, 681–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Krysan, J.L. Diapause in the neartic species of the virgifera group of Diabrotica: Evidence for tropical origin and temperate adaptations. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1982, 75, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Krysan, J.L.; Branson, T.F.; Díaz Castro, G. Diapause in Diabrotica virgifera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): A comparison of eggs from temperate and subtropical climates. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1977, 22, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cabrera Walsh, G.; Cabrera, N. Distribution and hosts of the pestiferous and other common Diabroticites from Argentina and Southern South America: A geographic and systematic view. In New Developments in the Biology of Chrysomelidae; Jolivet, P.H., Santiago-Blay, J.A., Schmitt, M., Eds.; SPB Academic Publishers: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 333–350. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ávila, C.J.; Parra, J.R.P. Desenvolvimento de Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) em diferentes hospedeiros. Cienc. Rural 2002, 32, 739–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cabrera Walsh, G. Host range and reproductive traits of Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) and Diabrotica viridula (F.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), two species of South American pest rootworms, with notes on other species of Diabroticina. Environ. Entomol. 2003, 32, 276–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Cabrera Walsh, G. Sorghum halepense (L.) Persoon (Poaceae), a new larval host for the South American corn rootworm Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Coleopt. Bull. 2007, 61, 83–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ávila, C.J.; Bitencourt, D.R.; Silva, I.F. Biology, reproductive capacity, and foliar consumption of Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in different host plants. J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 11, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Marques, G.B.C.; Ávila, C.J.; Parra, J.R.P. Danos causados por larvas e adultos de Diabrotica speciosa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) em milho. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 1999, 34, 1983–1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Gassen, D.N. Insetos Subterráneos Perjudiciais às Culturas no Sul de Brasil Documentos, 13; Embrapa-CNPT: Passo Fundo, Brazil, 1989; pp. 32–33. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ávila, C.J.; Milanez, J.M. Larva alfinete. In Pragas de Solo no Brasil; Salvadori, J.R., Ávila, C.J., Silva, M.T.B., Eds.; Fundacep-Fecotrigo: Passo Fundo/Dourados/Cruz Alta, Brazil, 2004; pp. 345–378. [Google Scholar]
  19. Salles, L.A. Incidência de danos de Diabrotica speciosa en cultivares e linhagens de batata. Cienc. Rural 2000, 30, 205–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Haji, N.F.P. Biologia, dano e controle do adulto de Diabrotica speciosa (Germar, 1824) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae na cultura da batatinha (Solanum tuberosum L.). Ph.D. Thesis, Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”, Piracicaba, Brazil, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ávila, C.J. Principais pragas e seu controle. In A Cultura do Feijoeiro em Mato Grosso do Sul, Circular Tecnica 17; Embrapa-UEPAE: Dourados, Brazil, 1990; pp. 54–56. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ávila, C.J.; Santana, A.G. Cap. 4: Danos causados às culturas por adultos e larvas de Diabrotica speciosa. In Diabrotica speciosa, 1st ed.; Nava, D.E., Ávila, C.J., Pinto, A.S., Eds.; Occasio Editora: Piracicaba/São Paulo, Brasil, 2016; pp. 59–67. [Google Scholar]
  23. Roberto, S.R.; Genta, W.; Ventura, M.U. Diabrotica speciosa (Ger.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): New pest in table grape orchards. Neotrop. Entomol. 2001, 30, 721–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Segarra-Carmona, A.E.; Flores-López, L.; Cabrera-Asencio, I. New report of a leaf beetle pest from North America in Puerto Rico: Diabrotica balteata Le Conte (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and its chemical control. J. Agric. Univ. Puerto Rico 2008, 92, 119–122. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gonzalez, R.; Cardona, C.; Schoonhoven, A.V. Morfología y biología de los crisomélidos Diabrotica balteata LeConte y Cerotoma facialis Erickson como plagas del frijol común. Turrialba 1982, 32, 257–264. [Google Scholar]
  26. Clark, S.M.; LeDoux, D.G.; Seeno, T.N.; Riley, E.G.; Gilbert, A.J.; Sullivan, J.M. Host Plants of Leaf Beetle Species Occurring in the United States and Canada (Coleoptera: Megalopodidae, Orsodacnidae, Chrysomelidae, Excluding Bruchinae), Special Publication No. 2; Coleopterists Society: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2004; pp. 86–87. [Google Scholar]
  27. Saba, F. Host plant spectrum and temperature limitations of Diabrotica balteata. Can. Entomol. 1970, 102, 684–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Agrosavia. Available online: https://www.agrosavia.co/ctni/ctc/coleoptera/chrysomelidae/diabrotica/diabrotica-balteata (accessed on 16 April 2020).
  29. Morales, F.; Gámez, R. Beetle-transmitted viruses. In Bean Production Problems in the Tropics, 2nd ed.; Schwartz, H.F., Pastor Corrales, M.A., Eds.; CIAT: Cali, Colombia, 1989; pp. 363–378. [Google Scholar]
  30. Cano Piedrahíta, C.A. Evaluación de tres Extractos Vegetales para el Control de Plagas en el Cultivo de Frijol Arbustivo Phaseolus vulgaris L. Master’s Thesis, Universidad de Manizales, Caldas, Colombia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  31. Morales, F.J.; Castano, M.; Arroyave, J.A.; Ospina, M.D.; Calvert, L.A. A sobemovirus hindering the utilization of Calopogonium mucunoides as a forage legume in the lowland tropics. Plant Dis. 1995, 79, 1220–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cardona, C.; Gonzalez, R.; Schoonhoven, A.V. Evaluation of damage to common beans by larvae and adults of Diabrotica balteata and Cerotoma facialis. J. Econ. Entomol. 1982, 75, 324–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bandas, L.D.C.; Corredor, D.; Corredor, S. Efecto de la asociación patilla (Citrullus lanatus) con maíz (Zea mays) sobre la población y daño causado por tres insectos plaga y el rendimiento de estos cultivos en la Ciénaga Grande de Lorica, Córdoba. Rev. Colomb. Entomol. 2004, 30, 161–169. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rodríguez Chalarca, J.; Valencia, S.J. Daño por larvas de Diabrotica balteata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) en raíces de maíz en condiciones controladas. In Proceedings of the 39 Congreso de la Sociedad Colombiana de Entomología, Ibagué, Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia, 11–13 June 2012; p. 93. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tobar, J.A. Manejo Integrado de Insectos Plaga en el Cultivo de la Mani (Arachis hypogaea L.); Facultad de Ciencias Agrícolas, Universidad de Nariño: Nariño, Colombia, 1990; p. 21. [Google Scholar]
  36. Pitre, H.N., Jr.; Kantack, E.J. Biology of the banded cucumber beetle, Diabrotica balteata, in Louisiana. J. Econ. Entomol. 1962, 55, 904–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Clark, T.L.; Meinke, L.J.; Foster, J.E. Molecular phylogeny of Diabrotica beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) inferred from analysis of combined mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences. Insect Mol. Biol. 2001, 10, 303–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Olalquiaga, F.G. Aspectos fitosanitarios de la Isla de Pascua. Rev. Chil. Entomol. 1980, 10, 101–102. [Google Scholar]
  39. Anteparra, M.; Velásquez, J. Revisión de la familia Chrysomelidae asociada a leguminosas de grano en el trópico sudamericano. Invest. Amazonía 2015, 4, 62–69. [Google Scholar]
  40. King, A.B.S.; Saunders, J.L. The Invertebrate Pests of Annual Food Crops in Central America, 1st ed.; Overseas Development Administration: London, UK, 1984; pp. 44–45. [Google Scholar]
  41. Reyes, H.E.; Castillo, L.J. Transmisión del virus del moteado clorótico del maíz (maize chlorotic mottle virus -MCMV) por dos especies del género Diabrotica, familia Chrysomelidae. Fitopatología 1988, 23, 65–73. [Google Scholar]
  42. Waquil, J.M.; Mendes, S.M.; Marucci, R.C. Comunicado Técnico 178: Ocorrência de Especies de Diabrotica em milho no Brasil: Qual a Predominante, Diabrotica Speciosa ou Diabrotica Viridula; Embrapa Milho e Sorgo: Sete Lagoas/Minas Gerais, Brazil, 2010; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  43. Cabrera Walsh, G. Laboratory rearing and vital statistics of Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) and Diabrotica viridula (F.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), two species of South American pest rootworms. Rev. Soc. Entomol. Argent. 2001, 60, 239–248. [Google Scholar]
  44. Cabrera Walsh, G. Crisomélidos Diabroticinos Americanos: Hospederos y Enemigos Naturales. Biología y Factibilidad de Manejo de las Especies Plaga, 1st ed.; Lap Lambert Academic Publishing GmbH & Co.: Saarbrücken, Germany, 2012; pp. 42–60. [Google Scholar]
  45. Levine, E.; Oloumi-Sadeghi, H. Management of diabroticite rootworms in corn. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1991, 36, 229–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Spencer, J.L.; Hibbard, B.E.; Moeser, J.; Onstad, D.W. Behaviour and ecology of the western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte). Agric. For. Entomol. 2009, 11, 9–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Schaafsma, A.W.; Whitfield, G.H.; Ellis, C.R. A temperature-dependent model of egg development of the western corn rootworm, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera Leconte (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Can. Entomol. 1991, 123, 1183–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Stevenson, D.E.; Michels, G.J.; Bible, J.B.; Jackman, J.A.; Harris, M.K. Physiological time model for predicting adult emergence of western corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in the Texas High Plains. J. Econ. Entomol. 2008, 101, 1584–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Park, Y.; Tollefson, J.J. Spatial prediction of corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) adult emergence in Iowa cornfields. J. Econ. Entomol. 2005, 98, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Meinke, L.J.; Sappington, T.W.; Onstad, D.W.; Guillemaud, T.; Miller, N.J.; Komáromi, J.; Levay, N.; Furlan, L.; Kiss, J.; Toth, F. Western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte) population dynamics. Agric. For. Entomol. 2009, 11, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Herbert, D.A., Jr.; Malone, S.; Brandenburg, R.L.; Royals, B.M. Evaluation of the peanut southern corn rootworm advisory. Peanut Sci. 2004, 31, 28–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ávila, C.J.; Milanez, J.M.; Parra, J.R.P. Previsão de ocorrência de Diabrotica speciosa utilizando o modelo de graus-dia de laboratório. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 2002, 37, 427–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Cabrera Walsh, G.; Sacco, J.; Mattioli, F. Voltinism of Diabrotica speciosa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in Argentina: Latitudinal clines and implications for damage anticipation. Pest Manag. Sci. 2013, 69, 1272–1279. [Google Scholar]
  54. Hoffmann-Campo, C.B.; Moscardi, F.; Corrêa-Ferreira, B.S.; Oliveira, L.J.; Sosa-Gómez, D.R.; Panizzi, A.R.; Corso, I.C.; Gazzoni, D.L.; Oliveira, E.B. Pragas da Soja no Brasil e seu Manejo Integrado, Circular Técnica 30; Embrapa Soja: Londrina, Brazil, 2000; pp. 16–17. [Google Scholar]
  55. Silva, C.C.; Peloso, M.J.D. Informações técnica para o cultivo do feijoeiro comum na região central-brasileira 2005–2007; Embrapa arroz e feijão: Santo Antônio de Goiás, Brazil, 2006; pp. 124–136. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ávila, C.J. Eficiência do inseticida terbufós no controle de larvas de vaquinha (Diabrotica speciosa) em milho (Zea mays L.). In Proceedings of the 15 Congresso Brasileiro de Entomologia, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras, Brazil, 12–17 March 1995; p. 467. [Google Scholar]
  57. Carvalho, R.A.; Dourado, P.M.; Oliveira Junio, J.A.; Martinelli, S. Cap. 6: Plants transgênicas no controle de Diabrotica spp. In Diabrotica Speciosa, 1st ed.; Nava, D.E., Ávila, C.J., Pinto, A.S., Eds.; Occasio Editora: Piracicaba/São Paulo, Brasil, 2016; pp. 85–103. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ávila, C.J.; Santana, A.G. Cap. 9: Controle químico de Diabrotica speciosa. In Diabrotica speciosa, 1st ed.; Nava, D.E., Ávila, C.J., Pinto, A.S., Eds.; Occasio Editora: Piracicaba/São Paulo, Brasil, 2016; pp. 139–149. [Google Scholar]
  59. AGROFIT. Available online: http://agrofit.agricultura.gov.br/agrofit_cons/principal_agrofit_cons (accessed on 6 May 2020).
  60. Programa de Hortalizas. 2020. Available online: http://www.lamolina.edu.pe/hortalizas (accessed on 30 March 2020).
  61. INTA. Manejo de Plagas de Maíz. Available online: https://inta.gob.ar/sites/default/files/script-tmp-inta-manejo_de_plagas_en_el_cultivo_de_maz.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2020).
  62. On24. Available online: https://www.on24.com.ar/negocios/agro/a-la-vanguardia-en-tratamientos-de-semillas/ (accessed on 22 April 2020).
  63. Ávila, C.J.; Gomez, S.A. Diagnóstico de pragas de solo no Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul. In Proceedings of the 9 Reunião Sul-Brasileira de Pragas de solo, EPAGRI, Estação Experimental de Itajaí, Camboriú, Brazil, 3–5 September 2005; pp. 30–34. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ávila, C.J.; Gomez, S.A. Controle químico de larvas de Diabrotica speciosa Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) na cultura do milho. In Proceedings of the 8 Reunião sul Brasileira de Pragas do Solo, Londrina, Brazil, 26–27 September 2001; Embrapa Soja: Londrina, Brazil, 2001; pp. 254–257. [Google Scholar]
  65. Viana, P.A.; Marochi, A.I. Controle químico da larva de Diabrotica spp. na cultura do milho em sistema de plantio direto. Rev. Bras. Milho Sorgo 2002, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Salles, L.A. Eficiência do inseticida thiamethoxam (actara) no controle das pragas de solo da batata, Diabrotica speciosa (Col., Chrysomelidae) e Heteroderes spp. (Col., Elateridae). Rev. Bras. Agrociencia 2000, 6, 149–151. [Google Scholar]
  67. Ávila, C.J.; Botton, M. Aplicação de Inseticidas no Solo; FEALQ: Piracicaba, Brazil, 2000; pp. 24–26. [Google Scholar]
  68. Gomes, F.B.; Moraes, J.C.; Ner, D.K.P. Adubação com silício como fator de resistência a insetos-praga e promotor de produtividade em cultura de batata inglesa em sistema orgânico. Cienc. Agrotec. 2009, 33, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Lovestrand, S.G.; Beavers, J.B. Effect of diflubenzuron on four species of weevil attacking citrus in Florida. Fla. Entomol. 1980, 63, 112–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Elek, J.A.; Longstaff, B.C. Effect of chitin-synthesis inhibitors on stored-products beetles. Pestic. Sci. 1994, 40, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ávila, C.J.; Nakano, O.; Chagas, M.C.M. Efeito do regulador de crescimento de insetos lufenuron na fecundidade e viabilidade dos ovos de Diabrotica speciosa (Germar), 1924 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Rev. Agric. 1998, 73, 69–78. [Google Scholar]
  72. Ávila, C.J.; Nakano, O. Efeito do regulador de crescimento de insetos lufenuron na reprodução de Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). An. Soc. Entomol. Bras. 1999, 28, 293–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. ArgenBio. Available online: http://www.argenbio.org/cultivos-transgenicos (accessed on 22 April 2020).
  74. INBIO. Available online: https://inbio.org.py/wp-content/uploads/maiz-soja-zafri%C3%B1a-2019-INBIO-para-web-1-1.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2020).
  75. ISAAA. ISAAA Brief No. 53: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2017: Biotech Crop Adoption Surges as Economic Benefits Accumulate in 22 Years; ISAAA: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 53–55. [Google Scholar]
  76. Cultivos Transgénicos en Colombia. Available online: https://www.semillas.org.co/apc-aa-files/5d99b14191c59782eab3da99d8f95126/informe-pais-ogm-2018_web.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2020).
  77. Delgado Gutiérrez, D. Regulación de los transgénicos en el Perú; Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental: Lima, Peru, 2015; pp. 56–61. [Google Scholar]
  78. Hernández, X. Bolivia abandona su política anti transgénicos y se suma al mercado de los OGM. Available online: https://www.infocampo.com.ar/bolivia-abandona-su-politica-anti-transgenicos-y-se-suma-al-mercado-de-los-ogm/ (accessed on 16 April 2020).
  79. Silva, J.R.; Feldmann, N.A.; Muhl, F.R.; Rhoden, A.C.; Blabinot, M.; Asolin, L.; Pava, D. Avaliação da eficiência da biotecnologia no controle da larva-alfinete (Diabrotica speciosa) na cultura do milho. Rev. Cienc. Agrovet. Aliment. 2016, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  80. Gallo, P. Avaliação da eficácia do evento MON88017 (Cry3bb1) na redução do dano da larva de Diabrotica speciosa (Germar, 1824) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) na raiz do milho. Master’s Thesis, Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, Brazil, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  81. Afonso da Rosa, A.P.S.; Castro, C.M.; Pereira, A.S.; Lourenção, A.L. Cap. 5. Resistência de plantas a Diabrotica speciosa. In Diabrotica speciosa, 1st ed.; Nava, D.E., Ávila, C.J., Pinto, A.S., Eds.; Occasio Editora: Piracicaba/São Paulo, Brasil, 2016; pp. 71–82. [Google Scholar]
  82. Lara, F.M.; Scaranello, A.L.; Baldin, E.L.L.; Bolça Junior, A.L.; Lourenção, A.L. Resistência de genótipos de batata a larvas e adultos de Diabrotica speciosa. Hortic. Bras. 2004, 22, 761–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lara, F.M.; Poletti, M.; Barbosa, J.C. Resistência de genótipos de batata (Solanum spp.) a Diabrotica speciosa (Germar, 1824) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Cienc. Rural 2000, 30, 927–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Teodoro, J.S.; Martins, J.F.S.; Rosa, A.P.; Castro, C.M. Characterization of potato genotypes for resistance to Diabrotica speciosa. Hortic. Bras. 2014, 32, 440–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Jackson, D.M.; Bohac, J.R. Resistance of sweetpotato genotypes to adult Diabrotica beetles. J. Econ. Entomol. 2014, 100, 566–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lu, H.; Wright, A.L.; Sui, D. Responses of lettuce cultivars to insect pests in southern Florida. Horttechnology 2011, 21, 773–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Sethi, A.; Alborn, H.T.; McAuslane, H.J.; Nuessly, G.S.; Nagata, R.T. Banded cucumber beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) resistance in romaine lettuce: Understanding latex chemistry. Arthropod Plant Interact. 2012, 6, 269–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Heyer, W.; Cruz, B.; Chiang-Lok, M.L. Comportamiento y preferencia de los adultos de Diabrotica balteata, Andrector ruficornis, Systena basalis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) y Empoasca fabae (Homoptera: Cicadellidae), en frijol. Cienc. Agric. 1986, 27, 61–76. [Google Scholar]
  89. Vieira, C.; Borém, A.; Ramalho, M.A.P. Melhoramento do feijão. In Melhoramento de Espécies Cultivadas; Borém, A., Ed.; UFV: Viçosa, Brazil, 2005; pp. 301–391. [Google Scholar]
  90. El Khishen, A.A.; Bohn, M.O.; Prischmann-Voldseth, D.A.; Dashiel, K.E.; French, B.W.; Hibbard, B.E. Native resistance to western corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) larval feeding: Characterization and mechanisms. J. Econ. Entomol. 2009, 102, 2350–2359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. García, J.; Cardona, C.; Raigosa, J. Evaluación de poblaciones de insectos plaga en la asociación caña de azúcar–fríjol y su relación con los rendimientos. Rev. Colomb. Entomol. 1979, 5, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  92. Risch, S. The population dynamics of several herbivorous beetles in a tropical agroecosystem: The effect of intercropping corn, beans and squash in Costa Rica. J. Appl. Ecol. 1980, 17, 593–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Cardona, C. Effect of intercropping on insect populations: The case of beans. In Proceedings, Workshop on Research Methods for Cereal/Legume Intercropping in Eastern and Southern Africa (Lilongwe, Malawi); Waddington, S.R., Palmer, A.F.E., Edje, O.T., Eds.; CIMMYT: Mexico City, Mexico, 1989; pp. 56–61. [Google Scholar]
  94. Toepfer, S.; Cabrera-Walsh, G.; Eben, A.; Alvarez Zagoya, R.; Haye, T.; Zhang, F.; Kuhlmann, U. A critical evaluation of host ranges of parasitoids of the subtribe Diabroticina (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae: Luperini) using field and laboratory host records. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2008, 18, 485–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Toepfer, S.; Haye, T.; Erlandson, M.; Goettel, M.; Lundgren, J.G.; Kleespies, R.G.; Weber, D.C.; Cabrera Walsh, G.; Peters, A.; Ehlers, R.-U.; et al. A review of the natural enemies of beetles in the subtribe Diabroticina (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): Implications for sustainable pest management. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2009, 19, 1–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Metcalf, R.L. Chemical ecology of Diabroticites. In Novel Aspects of the Biology of Chrysomelidae, Series Entomologica, 1st ed.; Jolivet, P.H., Cox, M.L., Petitpierre, E., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1994; Volume 50, pp. 153–169. [Google Scholar]
  97. Tallamy, D.W.; Stull, J.; Ehresman, N.P.; Gorski, P.M.; Mason, C.E. Cucurbitacins as feeding and oviposition deterrents to insects. Environ. Entomol. 1997, 26, 678–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Contardi, H.G. Estudios genéticos en Cucurbita y consideraciones agronómicas. Physis 1939, 18, 332–347. [Google Scholar]
  99. Howe, W.L.; Sanborn, J.R.; Rhodes, A.M. Western corn rootworms and spotted cucumber beetle associations with Cucurbita and cucurbitacin. Environ. Entomol. 1976, 5, 1043–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Lundgren, J.G.; Fergen, J.K. Predator community structure and trophic linkage strength to a focal prey. Mol. Ecol. 2014, 23, 3790–3798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lundgren, J.G.; McDonald, T.; Rand, T.A.; Fausti, S.W. Spatial and numerical relationships of arthropod communities associated with key pests of maize. J. Appl. Entomol. 2015, 139, 446–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Lundgren, J.G.; Haye, T.; Toepfer, S.; Kuhlmann, U. A multifaceted hemolymph defense against predation in Diabrotica virgifera virgifera larvae. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2009, 19, 871–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lundgren, J.G.; Toepfer, S.; Haye, T.; Kuhlmann, U. Haemolymph defence of an invasive herbivore: Its breadth of effectiveness against predators. J. Appl. Entomol. 2010, 134, 439–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Eben, A.; Barbercheck, M.E. Field observations on host plant associations enemies of diabroticite beetles (Chrisomelidae: Luperini) in Veracruz, Mexico. Acta Zool. Mex. 1996, 67, 47–65. [Google Scholar]
  105. Heineck-Leonel, M.A.; Salles, L.A.B. Incidência de parasitóides e patógenos em adultos de Diabrotica speciosa (Germar, 1824) (Col., Chrysomelidae) na região de Pelotas, RS. Ann. Soc. Entomol. Bras. 1997, 26, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Cabrera Walsh, G. Distribution, host specificity, and overwintering of Celatoria bosqi Blanchard (Diptera: Tachinidae), a South American parasitoid of Diabrotica spp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae). Biol. Control 2004, 29, 427–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Cabrera Walsh, G.; Athanas, M.M.; Salles, L.A.B.; Schroder, R.F.W. Distribution, host range, and climatic constraints on Centistes gasseni (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), a South American parasitoid of cucumber beetles, Diabrotica spp. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 2004, 93, 561–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Cabrera Walsh, G.; Pinto, A.S.; Nava, D.E. Cap. 7: Controle biológico de Diabrotica speciosa: Parasitoides e predadores. In Diabrotica Speciosa, 1st ed.; Nava, D.E., Ávila, C.J., Pinto, A.S., Eds.; Occasio Editora: Piracicaba/São Paulo, Brasil, 2016; pp. 107–117. [Google Scholar]
  109. Pinto, A.d.S.; Parra, J.R.P. Liberação de inimigos naturais. In Controle Biológico No Brasil: Parasitóides e Predadores, 1st ed.; Parra, J.R.P., Botelho, P.S.M., Corrêa-Ferreira, B.S., Bento, J.M.S., Eds.; Manole: São Paulo, Brasil, 2002; pp. 325–342. [Google Scholar]
  110. Cagan, L.; Stevo, J.; Gasparovic, K.; Matusikova, S. Mortality of the Western corn rootworm, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera larvae caused by entomopathogenic fungi. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2019, 20, 678–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Santos, V.; Moino Junior, A.; Andaló, V.; Moreira, C.C.; Olinda, R.A. Virulence of entomopathogenic nematodes (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae) for the control of Diabrotica speciosa Germar (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Cienc. Agrotec. 2011, 35, 1149–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Consolo, V.; Salerno, G.; Beron, C. Pathogenicity, formulation and storage of insect pathogenic hyphomycetous fungi tested against Diabrotica speciosa. BioControl 2003, 48, 705–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Tigano-Milani, M.S.; Carneiro, R.G.; Faria, M.R.; Frazão, H.S.; McCoy, C.W. Isozyme characterization and pathogenicity of Paecilomyces fumosoroseus and P. lilacinus to Diabrotica speciosa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and Meloidogyne javanica (Nematoda: Tylenchidae). Biol. Control 1995, 5, 378–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Vianna, M.F. Capacidad biocida de hongos entomopatógenos para el control de plagas del tabaco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) en la provincia de Jujuy, República Argentina. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  115. Silva-Werneck, J.O.; de Faria, M.R.; Abreu Neto, B.P.; Magalhães, B.P.; Schimidt, F.G.V. Técnica de criação de Diabrotica speciosa (Germ.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) para bioensaios com bacilos e fungos entomopatogênicos. An. Soc. Entomol. Bras. 1995, 24, 45–52. [Google Scholar]
  116. Pinto, A.d.S.; Hernandes, A.J.; Miyazaki, M.J.; Miralha, V.R.; Rodrigues, L.R.; de Sousa, E.N. Tratamento de sementes de feijoeiro com Beauveria bassiana e Metarhizium anisopliae visando ao manejo de pragas de folhas. In Proceedings of the 16 Simpósio de Controle Biológico, Londrina, Brazil, 11–15 August 2019; EMBRAPA Soja: Londrina, Brazil, 2019; p. 53. [Google Scholar]
  117. Jaffuel, G.; Imperiali, N.; Shelby, K.; Campos-Herrera, R.; Geisert, R.; Maurhofer, M.; Loper, J.; Keel, C.; Turlings, T.C.J.; Hibbard, B.E. Protecting maize from rootworm damage with the combined application of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, Pseudomonas bacteria and entomopathogenic nematodes. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 3127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Disi, J.O.; Kloepper, J.W.; Fadamiro, H.Y. Seed treatment of maize with Bacillus pumilus strain INR-7 affects host location and feeding by Western corn rootworm, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera. J. Pest Sci. 2018, 91, 515–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Modic, S.; Zigon, P.; Kolmanic, A.; Trdan, S.; Razinger, J. Evaluation of the field efficacy of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora Poinar (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae) and synthetic insecticides for the control of Western Corn Rootworm Larvae. Insects 2020, 11, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Jaffuel, G.; Sbaiti, I.; Turlings, T.C. Encapsulated entomopathogenic nematodes can protect maize plants from Diabrotica balteata larvae. Insects 2020, 11, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Toth, S.; Szalai, M.; Kiss, J.; Toepfer, S. Missing temporal effects of soil insecticides and entomopathogenic nematodes in reducing the maize pest Diabrotica virgifera virgifera. J. Pest Sci. 2020, 93, 767–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Santos, V.; Leite, L.G.; Moino Junior, A. Cap. 8. Controle de Diabrotica speciosa com entomopatógenos. In Diabrotica Speciosa, 1st ed.; Nava, D.E., Ávila, C.J., Pinto, A.S., Eds.; Occasio Editora: Piracicaba/São Paulo, Brasil, 2016; pp. 121–136. [Google Scholar]
  123. Chiriboga, X.; Guo, H.; Campos-Herrera, R.; Röder, G.; Imperiali, N.; Keel, C.; Maurhofer, M.; Turlings, T.C. Root-colonizing bacteria enhance the levels of (E)-β-caryophyllene produced by maize roots in response to rootworm feeding. Oecologia 2018, 187, 459–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Nickle, W.R.; Schroder, R.F.W.; Krysan, J.L. A new Peruvian Hexamermis sp. (Nematoda: Mermithidae) parasite of corn rootworms, Diabrotica spp. Proc. Helminthol. Soc. Wash. 1984, 51, 212–216. [Google Scholar]
  125. Gassen, D.N. Circular Técnica, 1. Parasitos, Patógenos e Predadores de Insetos Associados à Cultura do Trigo, 2nd ed.; EMBRAPA-CNPT: Passo Fundo, Brazil, 1986; pp. 32–33. [Google Scholar]
  126. Creighton, C.S.; Fassuliotis, G. Infectivity and suppression of the banded cucumber beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) by the mermithid nematode Filipjevimermis leipsandra (Mermithida: Mermithidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 1983, 76, 615–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Hammack, L. Calling behavior in female western corn rootworm beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1995, 88, 562–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Nardi, C.; Ventura, M.U.; Santos, F.; Bento, J.M.S. Cap. 10: Comportamento e ecología química de Diabrotica speciosa. In Diabrotica speciosa, 1st ed.; Nava, D.E., Ávila, C.J., Pinto, A.S., Eds.; Occasio Editora: Piracicaba/São Paulo, Brasil, 2016; pp. 153–184. [Google Scholar]
  129. Nardi, C. Estímulos Olfativos Envolvidos no Comportamento Sexual e na Seleção Hospedeira de Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) (Coleoptera: Crysomelidae). Ph.D. Thesis, Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”, Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  130. Ventura, M.U.; Mello, E.P.; Oliveira, A.R.M.; Simonelli, F.; Marques, F.A.; Zarbin, P.H.G. Males are attracted by female traps: A new perspective for management of Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) using sexual pheromone. Neotrop. Entomol. 2001, 30, 361–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Chuman, T.; Guss, P.L.; Doolittle, R.E.; McLaughlin, J.R.; Krysan, J.L.; Schalk, J.M.; Tumlinson, J.H. Identification of female-produced sex pheromone from banded cucumber beetle, Diabrotica balteata LeConte (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 1987, 13, 1601–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. McLaughlin, J.R.; Tumlinson, J.H.; Mori, K. Responses of male Diabrotica balteata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) to stereoisomers of the sex pheromone 6,12-dimethylpentadecan-2-one. J. Econ. Entomol. 1991, 84, 99–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Mori, K.; Igarashi, Y. Synthesis of the four stereoisomers of 6,12-dimethyl-2-pentadecanone, the sex pheromone of Diabrotica balteata LeConte. Liebigs Ann. Chem. 1988, 7, 717–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Enders, D.; Jandeleit, B.; Prokopenko, O.F. Convergent synthesis of (R,R)-6,12-dimethylpentadecan-2-one, the female sex pheromone of the banded cucumber beetle by iron mediated chirality transfer. Tetrahedron 1995, 51, 6273–6284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Shen, W.; Hao, X.; Shi, Y.; Tian, W.S. Synthesis of (6R,12R)-6,12-dimethylpentadecan-2-one, the female-produced sex pheromone from banded cucumber beetle Diabrotica balteata, based on a chiron approach. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2015, 10, 2155–2160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Schalk, J.M.; McLaughlin, J.R.; Tumlinson, J.H. Field response of feral male banded cucumber beetles to the sex pheromone 6,12-dimethylpentadecan-2-one. Fla. Entomol. 1990, 73, 292–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Evergreen Growers Supply. Available online: www.evergreengrowers.com/banded-cucumber-beetle-lure-group-diabal.html (accessed on 6 May 2020).
  138. Ventura, M.U.; Martins, M.C.; Pasini, A. Responses of Diabrotica speciosa and Cerotoma arcuata tingomariana (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) to volatile attractants. Fla. Entomol. 2000, 83, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Marques, F.A.; Wendler, E.P.; Macedo, A.; Wosch, C.L.; Maia, B.H.S.; Mikami, A.Y.; Arruda-Gatt, I.C.; Pissina, A.; Mingotte, F.L.C.; Alves, A.; et al. Response of Diabrotica speciosa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) to 1,4-Dimethoxybenzene and analogs in common bean crop. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2009, 52, 1333–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Pereira, T.; Ventura, M.U.; Marques, M.A. Comportamento de larvas de Diabrotica speciosa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) em resposta ao CO2 e a plântulas de espécies cultivadas. Cienc. Rural 2005, 35, 981–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Johnson, S.N.; Gregory, P.J. Chemically-mediated host-plant location and selection by root-feeding insects. Physiol. Entomol. 2006, 31, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Nardi, C.; Luvizotto, R.A.; Parra, J.R.P.; Bento, J.M.S. Mating behavior of Diabrotica speciosa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Environ. Entomol. 2012, 41, 562–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Lorenzato, D. Controle integrado de Diabrotica speciosa (Germar 1824) em frutiferas de clima temperado com cairomonio encontrado em raizes de plantas nativas da familia Cucurbitaceae. In Proceedings of the 7 Congresso Brasileiro de Fruticultura, Florianópolis, Brazil, 25–26 July 1983; Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecuária e Extensão Rural: Florianópolis, Brazil, 1984; pp. 347–355. [Google Scholar]
  144. Hamerschmidt, I. Uso do tajujá e purungo como atraentes de vaquinha em olericultura. Hortic. Bras. 1985, 3, 45. [Google Scholar]
  145. Shaw, J.T.; Ruesink, W.G.; Briggs, S.P.; Luckmann, W.H. Monitoring populations of corn rootworm beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) with a trap baited with cucurbitacins. J. Econ. Entomol. 1984, 77, 1495–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Ventura, M.U.; Ito, M.; Montalván, R. An attractive trap to capture Diabrotica speciosa (Ger.) and Cerotoma arcuata tingomariana Bechyné. An. Soc. Entomol. Bras. 1996, 25, 529–535. [Google Scholar]
  147. Cabrera Walsh, G.; Weber, D.C.; Mattioli, F.M.; Heck, G. Qualitative and quantitative responses of Diabroticina (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) to cucurbit extracts linked to species, sex, weather, and deployment method. J. Appl. Entomol. 2008, 132, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Cabrera Walsh, G.; Mattioli, F.; Weber, D.C. A wind-oriented sticky trap for evaluating the behavioural response of the leaf-beetle Diabrotica speciosa to cucurbit extracts. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2014, 60, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Daoust, R.A.; Pereira, R.M. Stability of entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae on beetle-attracting tubers and cowpea foliage in Brazil. Environ. Entomol. 1986, 15, 1237–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Metcalf, R.L.; Ferguson, J.E.; Lampman, R.L.; Andersen, J.F. Dry cucurbitacin-containing baits for controlling diabroticite beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 1987, 80, 870–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Lance, D.R.; Sutter, G.R. Field-cage and laboratory evaluations of semiochemical-based baits for managing western corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 1990, 83, 1085–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Barbercheck, M.E.; Herbert, D.A., Jr.; Warrick, W.C., Jr. Evaluation of semiochemical baits for management of southern corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in peanuts. J. Econ. Entomol. 1995, 88, 1754–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Schroder, R.F.W.; Martin, P.A.W.; Athanas, M.M. Effect of a phloxine B-cucurbitacin bait on Diabroticite beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2001, 94, 892–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Pedersen, A.B.; Godfrey, L.D. Evaluation of cucurbitacins-based gustatory stimulant to facilitate cucumber beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) management with foliar insecticides in melons. J. Econ. Entomol. 2011, 104, 1294–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Cabrera Walsh, G.; Mattioli, F.; Weber, D.C. Differential response of male and female Diabrotica speciosa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) to bitter cucurbit-based toxic baits in relation to the treated area size. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2014, 60, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Tallamy, D.T.; Halaweish, F.T. Effects of age, reproductive activity, sex and prior exposure on sensitivity to cucurbitacins in southern corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Environ. Entomol. 1993, 22, 925–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Ventura, M.U.; Resta, C.C.M.; Nunes, D.H.; Fujimoto, F. Trap attributes influencing capture of Diabrotica speciosa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on common bean fields. Sci. Agric. 2005, 62, 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Chandler, L.D. Corn rootworm areawide management program: United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service. Pest Manag. Sci. 2003, 59, 605–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Photographs of the adult of the three species of pest Diabrotica from South America.
Figure 1. Photographs of the adult of the three species of pest Diabrotica from South America.
Insects 11 00421 g001
Figure 2. Distribution of Diabrotica speciosa in South America (crosshatched area).
Figure 2. Distribution of Diabrotica speciosa in South America (crosshatched area).
Insects 11 00421 g002
Figure 3. Distribution of Diabrotica viridula in South America (stippled area).
Figure 3. Distribution of Diabrotica viridula in South America (stippled area).
Insects 11 00421 g003
Figure 4. Top, typical damage on maize roots and lodging caused by D. speciosa and D. viridula larvae. (photos by Dirceu N. Gassen); below, D. speciosa larva on potato with typical pinprick damage (photo by Pablo Lanzetta).
Figure 4. Top, typical damage on maize roots and lodging caused by D. speciosa and D. viridula larvae. (photos by Dirceu N. Gassen); below, D. speciosa larva on potato with typical pinprick damage (photo by Pablo Lanzetta).
Insects 11 00421 g004
Table 1. Main crops attacked by the South American pest Diabrotica species, and current and potential control methods.
Table 1. Main crops attacked by the South American pest Diabrotica species, and current and potential control methods.
D. balteataD. speciosaD. viridulaControl MethodsPromising Control Methods
Host CropAdultsLarvaeAdultsLarvaeAdults LarvaeAdultsLarvaeAdults Larvae
beansxxx x Cb, Op, Nn, Py 1intercropping
plant resistance
cucurbitsx x Cb, Op, Nn, Pycucurbitacin baits
maize xxx xCb, Op, Nn, PyBt maize
seed treatment (Nn, Cb, Di) 1
silicon
cucurbitacin baits
IGR 1
seed treatment with fungi,
plant resistance, nematodes
peanuts xxx Cb, Op, Nn, Py
potatoesx xx Nn plant resistanceplant resistance,
nematodes
soybeans x Cb, Op, Nn, Py
tobacco x Cb, Op, Nn, Py
1 Cb, carbamates; Op, organophosphates; Nn, neonicotinoids; Py, phenylpyrazole; Di, diamides; IGR, insect growth regulators

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cabrera Walsh, G.; Ávila, C.J.; Cabrera, N.; Nava, D.E.; de Sene Pinto, A.; Weber, D.C. Biology and Management of Pest Diabrotica Species in South America. Insects 2020, 11, 421. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11070421

AMA Style

Cabrera Walsh G, Ávila CJ, Cabrera N, Nava DE, de Sene Pinto A, Weber DC. Biology and Management of Pest Diabrotica Species in South America. Insects. 2020; 11(7):421. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11070421

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cabrera Walsh, Guillermo, Crébio J. Ávila, Nora Cabrera, Dori E. Nava, Alexandre de Sene Pinto, and Donald C. Weber. 2020. "Biology and Management of Pest Diabrotica Species in South America" Insects 11, no. 7: 421. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11070421

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