Ant Association

  • M. Mani
  • C. Shivaraju


Ants are often associated with mealybugs as honeydew consumers. Ants protect mealybugs from their natural enemies. Ants protect the mealybugs from adverse weather by building earthen shelters around them and moving them to protected places. One of the direct benefits of ant association to mealybugs is shown in relation to the production of honeydew and the subsequent contamination of the honeydew and source insect with sooty mold. Access to honeydew has been shown to enhance the rate of increase of ant colonies. Ants are known to transport the mealybugs from plant to plant between and within fields, thus facilitating mealybug dispersal. General ant control measures are to be adopted to suppress the activity of ants.


Natural Enemy Sooty Mold Bait Station Disodium Octaborate Tetrahydrate Mealybug Population 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anderson TJ (1926) Report of entomologist. Rep Dept Agric Kenya 135–147Google Scholar
  2. Ashbolt NJ, Inkerman PA (1990) Acetic acid bacterial biodata of the pink sugar cane mealybug Sacchariococcus sacchari and its environs. Appl Environ Microbiol 56(3):707–712PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Beardsley JW, Su TH, McEwen FL, Gerling D (1982) Field investigations of the interrelationships of the big-headed ant, the gray pineapple mealybug, and pineapple mealybug wilt disease in Hawaii. Proc Hawaii Entomol Soc 24:51–67Google Scholar
  4. Bennett FD, Hughes IW (1959) Biolgoical control of insect pests of Bermuda. Bull Entomol Res 50:423–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chun LY, Tai CN (2007) The association of pink hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) with bigheaded ant Pheidole megacephala (Fabricius) on hibiscus [Chinese]. Formosan Entomol 27:229–243Google Scholar
  6. Collins L, Scott JN (1982) Interactions of ants, predators and the scale insect Pulvinariella mesembryanthem on Carpobrotus edulis, an exotic plant naturalized in Western Australia. Aust Entomol Mag 8(5):73–75Google Scholar
  7. Constantino G (1935) Unnemicodel contonela degliagrumi: Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Muls. Acireale R Staz Sper de Fruttic e Agrumic Bol (ns) 6:7Google Scholar
  8. Cudjoe AR, Neuenschwander P, Copeland MJW (1993) Interference by ants in biological control of the cassava mealybug Phenacoccus manihoti (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Ghana. Bull Entomol Res 83:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daane KM, Sime KR, Hogg BN, Bianchi ML, Cooper ML, Rust MK, Klotz JH (2006) Effects of liquid insecticide baits on Argentine ants in California’s coastal vineyards. Crop Prot 25:592–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daane KM, Sime KR, Fallon J, Cooper ML (2007) Impacts of Argentine ants on mealybugs and their natural enemies in California’s coastal vineyards. Ecol Entomol 32:583–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Degen AA, Gersani M (1989) Environmental effects on activity and honeydew collection by the weaver ant Polyrhachis simplex (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) when attending the mealybug Trabutina sp (Homoptera, Pseudococcidae). J Zool 218:421–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franco JC, Silva EB, Carvalho JP (2000) Mealybugs (Hemiptera, Pseudococcidae) associated with citrus in Portugal. ISA Press, Lisbon (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  13. Gary CJ, Beardsley JW (2000) Interactions of Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Mealybugs (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) on Pineapple. Proc Hawaii Entomol Soc 34:161–165Google Scholar
  14. González-Hernández H, Johnson MW, Reimer NJ (1999) Impact of Pheidole megacephala (F.) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on the biological control of Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Cockerell) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Biol Control 15(2):145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greathead DJ (1971) A review of biological control in the Ethiopian region. Common Inst Biol Control Tech Comm 5:162Google Scholar
  16. Greathead DJ (1976) A review of biological control in western and Southern Europe. Common Inst Biol Control Tech Comm 7:182Google Scholar
  17. Gullan PJ, Kosztarab M (1997) Adaptations in scale insects. Annu Rev Entomol 42:23–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gutierrez AP, Daane KM, Ponti L, Walton VM, Ellis CK (2008) Prospective evaluation of the biological control of vine mealybug: refuge effects and climate. J Appl Ecol 45:524–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Helms KR, Vinson SB (2002) Widespread association of the invasive ant Solenopsis invicta with an invasive mealybug. Ecology 83:2425–2438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herzig J (1938) Ameisen und Blattlause. Ztschr f Angew Ent 24:367–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Illingworth JF (1931) Preliminary report on evidence that mealybugs are an important factor in pineapple wilt. J Econ Entomol 24:877–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jahn GC, Beardsley JW (1994) Big-headed ants, Pheidole megacephala: interference with the biological control of gray pineapple mealybugs. In: Williams DF (ed) Exotic ants: biology, impact and control of introduced species. Westview Press, Oxford, pp 199–205Google Scholar
  23. Jahn GC, Beardsley JW (2000) Interactions of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and mealybugs (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) on pineapple. Proc Hawaii Entomol Soc 34:181–185Google Scholar
  24. John W, Jr B, Sip TH, McEwen FL, Gerling D (1982) Field investigations on the interrelationships of the big-headed ant, the gray pineapple mealybug, and pineapple mealybug wilt disease in Hawaii! Proc Hawaiian Entomol Soc 24(1):51–67Google Scholar
  25. Kirkpatrick ZW (1927) Biological control of insect pests with particular reference to the control of common mealybug in Kenya colony. In: Proceedings of the South and East Africa Agricultural Conference 1926, pp 184–196Google Scholar
  26. Mani M, Krishnamoorthy A, Singh SP (1990) The impact of the predator, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant, on pesticide-resistant populations of the striped mealybug, (Ckll.) on guava in India. Insect Sci Appl 11(2):167–170Google Scholar
  27. Mansou R, Suma P, Mazzo G, Pergola AS, Pappalardo V, Lebdi KG, Russo A (2012) Interactions between the ant Tapinoma nigerrimum (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and the main natural enemies of vine and citrus mealybugs (Hemipotera: Pseudococcidae). Biocontrol Sci Technol 22(5):527–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McLeod P, Diaz J, Vasquez L, Johnson DT (2002) Within-plant distribution and sampling of mealybugs in plantain var. FHIA 21. Trop Agric 79:150–153Google Scholar
  29. Mittler TE, Douglas AE (2003) Honeydew. In: Resh VH, Cardé RT (eds) Encyclopedia of insects. Academic, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. Moreno DS, Haney PB, Luck RF (1987) Chlorpyrifos and diazinon as barriers to argentine ant (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) foraging on citrus trees. J Econ Entomol 80:208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murray DAH (1982) Effects of sticky banding of custard apple tree trunks on ants and citrus mealybug Planococcus citri (Risso) (Pseudococcidae, Hemiptera) in South Eastern Queensland. Queensland J Agric Animal Sci 39:141–146Google Scholar
  32. Narayanan R (1957) A note on the performance of Cryatolaemus montrouzieri Bul. in citrus orchards at Burnihat (Assam). Tech Bull Commonw Inst Biol Cont 9:137–138Google Scholar
  33. Nixon GEJ (1951) The association of ants with aphids and coccids. Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London, 36 pGoogle Scholar
  34. Nyamukondiwa C, Addison P (2011) Preference of foraging ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) for bait toxicants in South African vineyards. Crop Prot 30:1034–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Panis A, Brun J (1971) Biological control tests against three species of psuedococcidae (Homoptera: Coccoidea) in green house. Revue Zool Agric Path Veg 70:42–47Google Scholar
  36. Poutiers R (1922) Lacclimitation de Cryotolaemus montrouzieri Muls. Dans le midi de la France Ann des Epiphyt 8:3–18Google Scholar
  37. Reyne A (1954) Hippeacoccus, a new genus of Pseudococcidae from Java with peculiar habits. Leyden Rijks Mues Van Natuurlijke His Zool Meded 32:233–257Google Scholar
  38. Rohrbach KG, Apt WJ (1986) Nematode and disease problems of pineapple. Plant Dis 70:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rohrbach KG, Beardsley JW, German TL, Reimer NJ, Sanford WG (1988) Mealybug wilt, mealybugs, and ants of pineapple. Plant Dis 72(7):558–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Samways MJ, Nel M, Prins AJ (1982) Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) foraging in citrus trees and attending honey-producing Homoptera. Phytophylactica 14:155–157Google Scholar
  41. Sforza R (2008) Les cochenilles sur la vigne. In: Bordeaux Feret (ed) Les ravageurs de la vigne, pp 188–210, 389 pGoogle Scholar
  42. Silverman J, Brightwell RJ (2008) The Argentine ant: challenges in managing an invasive unicolonial pest. Annu Rev Entomol 53:231–252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Singh SP (1978) Propagation of a coccinellid beetle for the biological control of citrus and coffee mealybugs. Scientific Conference, CPA, 2 pGoogle Scholar
  44. Srikanth J, Easwaramoorthy S, Kurup NK (2001) Camponotus compressus F. interferes with Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant activity in sugarcane. Insect Environ 7:51–52Google Scholar
  45. Van der Goot P (1948) Biologishe bestrijding van vitte luis (Phenacoccus iceryoides) on koffie n de foradjalanden (Ziuid Colebes). Meded Alg Proefstn Landb 64:12Google Scholar
  46. Villalba M, Vila N, Marzal C, Garcia Mari F (2006) Influence of inoculative releases of natural enemies and exclusion of ants in the biological control of the citrus mealybug Planococcus citri (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), in citrus orchards [Spanish]. Boletin de Sanidad Vegetal Plagas 32(2):203–213Google Scholar
  47. Way MJ (1963) Mutualism between ants and honeydew-producing Homoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 8:307–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wheeler WM (1926) Ants, their structure, development and behaviour. Columbia University Press, New York, 663 pGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of Horticultural ResearchBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations