Glasshouse, Greenhouse and Polyhouse Crops

  • K. Gopalakrishna Pillai


In protected environments, mealybugs Pseudococcus longispinus, P. viburni, Planococcus citri, Phenacoccus gossypii, P. solenopsis, P. madeirensis, Maconellicoccus hirsutus, etc. are serious pests, causing extensive damage to different crops. Mealybugs being the most difficult to control pest, and monitoring, sanitation and regular application of insecticides are the most important elements of their control. Insecticidal soaps, horticultural oils, insect pathogenic fungi, insect growth regulators and systemic insecticides in the crawler stage are effective in management. Augumentative releases of parasitoids like Anagyrus psedococci, Leptomastix dactylopii, Aenasius bombawalei and predator, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri are promising alternatives to chemical control.


Insect Growth Regulator Systemic Insecticide Mealybug Species Citrus Mealybug 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. Chong JH (2005) Biology of the Mealybug Parasitoid, Anagyrus loecki, and its Potential as a Biological Control Agent of the Madeira Mealybug, Phenacoccus madeirensis. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 186 pGoogle Scholar
  2. Chong JH, Oetting RD (2007) Specificity of Anagyrus sp. nov. nr. sinope and Leptomastix dactylopii for six mealybug species. BioControl 52:289–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cloyd RA, Dickinson A (2006) Effect of Insecticides on Mealybug Destroyer (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and Parasitoid Leptomastix dactylopii (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), Natural Enemies of Citrus Mealybug (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). J Econ Entomol 99(5):1596–1604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Codling A (1977) Biological control of mealybug. Nat Cact Succ J 32(2):36–38Google Scholar
  5. Copland MJW (1983) Temperature constraints in the control of mealybug and scale insects. Bull SROP 6(3):142–145Google Scholar
  6. Copland MJW, Tingle CCD, Saynor M, Panis A (1985) Biology of glasshouse mealybugs and their predators and parasitoids. In: Hussey NW, Scopes NEA (eds) Biological pest control: the glasshouse experience. Branford Press, Poole, pp 82–86Google Scholar
  7. Doutt RL (1952) Biological control of Planococcus citri on commercial greenhouse -stephanotis. J Econ Entomol 45(2):343–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franco JC, Zada A, Mendel Z (2009) Novel approaches for the management of mealybug pests. In: I. Ishaaya and A.R. Horowitz (eds) Biorational control of arthropod pests. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 233–278Google Scholar
  9. Golan K, Górska-Drabik E (2004) The scale insects of some tropical fruit plants in greenhouses of Botanical Garden in Lublin (Poland). Latvian J Agron 7:39–42Google Scholar
  10. Hamid HA, Michelakis S (1994) The importance of Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant (Col., Coccinellidae) in the control of the citrus mealybug Planococcus citri (Homoptera: Coccoidea) under specific conditions. J Appl Entomol 118:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamid HA, Michelakis SE (1997) The use of Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (Mulsant) for the control of Planococcus citri (Risso) in Crete – Greece. Bull OILB/SROP 20:7–12Google Scholar
  12. Hamlen RA (1977) Laboratory and greenhouse evaluations of insecticides and insect growth regulators for control of foliar and root infesting mealybugs. J Econ Entomol 70(2):211–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hayat M (2009) Description of a new species of Aenasius Walker (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), parasitoid of the mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley Homoptera: Pseudococcidae ) in India. Biosystematica 3:21–26Google Scholar
  14. Heidari M (1999) Influence of host-plant physical defenses on the searching behaviour and efficacy of two coccinellid predators of the obscure mealybug, Pseudococcus vibruni (Signoret). Entomologica 33:397–402Google Scholar
  15. Laflin HM, Parrella MP (2004) Mealybug species (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) found on ornamental crops in California nursery production. Proc Entomol Soc Wash 106:475–477Google Scholar
  16. Lagowska B (1995) The biological control perspective of scale insects (Homoptera, Coccinea) on ornamental plants in glasshouses. Wiadomosci Entomologiczne 14:5–10Google Scholar
  17. McLeod JH (1939) Biological control of greenhouse insect pests. Rep Entomol Soc Ont 70:62–68Google Scholar
  18. Panis A, Brun J (1971) Trial of biological control against three species of Pseudococcidae (Homoptera, Coccoidea) in greenhouses of ornamental plants. Revue de Zool Agricole 70:42–47Google Scholar
  19. Summy KR, French JV, Hart WG (1986) Citrus mealybug (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) on greenhouse citrus: density-dependent regulation by an encyrtid parasite complex. J Econ Entomol 79(4):891–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Van Lenteren JC, Woets JV (1988) Biological and integrated pest control in greenhouses. Annu Rev Entomol 33(1):239–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Waterworth RA, Redak RA, Millar JG (2011) Pheromone-baited traps for assessment of seasonal activity and population densities of mealybug species (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in nurseries producing ornamental plants. J Econ Entomol 104(2):555–565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Willmott AL (2012) Efficacy of systemic insecticides against the citrus mealybug, Planococcus citri, and pesticide mixtures against the western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis, in protected environments. Master’s thesis. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of Horticultural ResearchBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations