Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:28:29.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Review of twenty-five Years of economic Entomology in the Island of Mauritius

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

L. Andre Moutia  and
Raymond Mamet
L. Andre Moutia
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Mauritius.
Raymond Mamet
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Mauritius.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The practical results achieved in the past twenty-five years' work on the major insect pest problems of Mauritius are discussed.

The major insect pests studied are the white grubs of sugar-cane, Clemora smithi (= Phytalus smithi) and Oryctes tarandus; the sugar-cane moth borers, Proceras sacchariphagus, Sesamia vuteria, and Argyroploce schistaceana; the coconut scale-insect, Aspidiotus destructor; the pineapple mealybug, Pseudococcus brevipes; the cochineal insects of the prickly pears, Dactylopius tomentosus and D. indicus; fruit-flies; the biting flies, Stomoxys nigra and S. calcitrans; the red ant, Solenopsis geminata; the black ant, Technomyrmex detorquens; and termites.

The actual status of these pests is given in detail. Clemora smithi, which was first recorded in 1911, is still a major pest of sugar-cane in spite of the 43 species of parasites and 2 species of predators introduced to check it. Oryctes tarandus very seldom causes severe damage now to sugar-cane plantations. It is a sporadic pest, and has been definitely held in check since the Scoliid wasp, Scolia oryctophaga, was introduced from Madagascar in 1917.

The status of the three moth borers of sugar-cane and that of their parasites is fully dealt with. Of the five species of parasites introduced from Ceylon and Madagascar in 1938–40 to control Proceras sacchariphagus, only one has so far been recovered and its beneficial effect is very limited. An account is given of experiments on the mass liberation of the egg parasites, Trichogramma australicum and T. evanescens. The results were in both cases deceptive. The spotted borer, P. sacchariphagus, is a major pest of sugar-cane in some localities and further introductions of parasites from other cane-growing countries are recommended.

The coconut scale, Aspidiotus destructor, which, since 1927, threatened all the coconut plantations of the Island, is now under control, owing to the introduction from Ceylon and Java, respectively, of the predacious Coccinellids, Chilocorus nigritus and C. politus. The bionomics of the various parasites and predators of this scale in Mauritius are fully described.

A historical review is given of the introduction of the cochineal insects of prickly pear, Dactylopius indicus and D. tomentosus in the Island. The completely successful eradication of Opuntia tuna and O. monacantha, by these two Coccids is given as a typical example of the biological control of noxious plants by insects.

The pineapple mealybug. Pseudococcus brevipes, which is responsible for wilting disease, is considered to be one of the factors limiting the development of the pineapple industry in Mauritius. Spraying with a diesel-clay emulsion, though checking this pest, is limited in its application. Further introductions of parasites and predators are desirable.

The common white mealybug, Icerya seychellarum, is still a major pest of orchards and ornamental plants in spite of the presence of the local Coccinellid predators, Rodolia chertnesina and Exochomus laeviusculus. Practical control can be achieved by the use of banding grease coupled with the attacks of predators. No local parasite has been recorded in Mauritius.

Six species of Trypetids are recorded. Of these, the flies attacking cucurbitaceous fruits are the most harmful. Experiments with numerous attractants for fruit-flies are mentioned. The only bait showing any success in the control of the Dacus flies is the Mally fruit-fly bait. Parasites have been imported from South Africa and Ceylon without success. Further attempts should be made.

The bionomics and breeding places of the blood-sucking fly, Stomoxys nigra, are described.

The Red Ant, Solenopsis geminata, is a major pest of seedlings in Mauritius. It is now destroyed by the use of a diesel-clay emulsion. Baits containing thallium sulphate have been tried without success.

The rôle of the Black Ant, Technomyrmex detorquens, in preventing development of the Coccinellid predators on Icerya seychellarum is emphasised. Barber's poisoned bait has been found very useful against this household pest.

A review of the species of termites found in Mauritius as well as the various means of control used against them are given. An insecticidal powder containing arsenious oxide has given the best results.

During the last 25–30 years, 64 species of parasites and predators have been imported for the biological control of eight species of insects of major economic importance and of two species of noxious plants.

The results achieved indicate that the introduction of parasites and predators in insular countries like Mauritius should be carried out only after a thorough investigation of the various ecological, biotic and climatic factors existing between the country of exportation and the country of importation.

The rôle of cyclonic disturbance in the fluctuation of the parasite population is mentioned. Scoliid parasites, for instance, are generally scarce after violently disturbed weather and may sometimes remain so for two or three years after the disturbance.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , December 1946 , pp. 439 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1946

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Balachowsky, A. (1932). Etude biologique des Coccides du bassin occidental de la Mediterranée.—Encycl. Ent. (A) 15, 214+lxxi pp., 46 figs., 14 maps, 7 pls.Google Scholar
2.Bezzi, M. (1915). On the Ethiopian fruit flies of the genus Dacus.—Bull. ent. Res., 6, pp. 85–101, 14 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Bezzi, M. (1917). New Ethiopian fruit flies of the genus Dacus.—Bull. ent. Res., 8, pp. 63–71, 6 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Bojer, W. (1856). Report of the Committee on the “Cane Borer”, 4 pls.Google Scholar
5.Boname, P. (1896). Rapport annuel de la Station Agronomique pour. 1895, 81 pp.Google Scholar
6.Boname, P. (1898). Rapport annuel de la Station Agronomique pour. 1897, 91 pp.Google Scholar
7.Coombes, A. N. (1937). The evolution of sugar cane culture in Mauritius, p. 177.Google Scholar
8.Craig, N. (1934). Some properties of the sugar cane soils of Mauritius.—Bull. Sugar cane Res. Sta. Mauritius., no. 4, 25 pp., 1 map.Google Scholar
9.D'Emmerez de Charmoy, D. (1912). Rapport sur le Phytalus smithi Arrow, 34 pp.Google Scholar
10.D'Emmerez de Charmoy, D. (1914). Rep. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, 1913, pp. 10–12.Google Scholar
11.D'Emmerez de Charmoy, D. (1915). Rep. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, 1914, pp. 17–20.Google Scholar
12.D'Emmerez de Charmoy, D. (1916). Moth borers affecting sugar cane in Mauritius.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, Sci. Ser., no. 5, 27 pp.Google Scholar
13.D'Emmerez de Charmoy, D. (1917). Notes relative to the importation of Tiphia parallela, Smith, from Barbados to Mauritius for the control of Phytalus smithi, Arrow.—Bull. ent. Res., 8, pp. 93–102, 1 map.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.D'Emmerez de Charmoy, D. (1921). Notes on insects accidentally introduced into the island of Mauritius.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, Sci. Ser., no. 8, 20 pp.Google Scholar
15.D'Emmerez de Charmoy, D. (1923). An attempt to introduce Scoliid wasps from Madagascar to Mauritius.—Bull. ent. Res., 13, pp. 245–254, 4 pls.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.D'Emmerez de Charmoy, D. (1927). Report on the operations for the control of Phytalus smithi, Arrow, during season. 1926–27, 13 pp.Google Scholar
17.D'Emmerez de Charmoy, D. (1927). La cochenille du Cocotier, Aspidiotus destructor, Signoret.—Leafl. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, no. 24 3 pp.Google Scholar
18.D'Emmerez de Charmoy, D. (1928). Opuntia tuna. Rev. agric. Maurice., n o. 42, pp. 264–267.Google Scholar
19.D'Emmerez de Charmoy, D. (1930). Rep. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, 1929, pp. 4–6.Google Scholar
20.Edington, A. & Coutts, J. M. (1907). A note on the recent epidemic of Trypanosomiasis at Mauritius.—Lancet, 10 5th, 1907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Edwards, W. H. (1928). Experiments with insecticides against Phytalus grubs. In Report on the operations for the control of Phytalus smithi, Arrow, during the season 1927–1928, pp. 9–10.Google Scholar
22.Edwards, W. H. (1928). Le Phytalus Smithi. Leafl. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, no. 28, 7 pp.Google Scholar
23.Evars, H. (1941). 11th Rep. Sugar Cane Res. Sta. Mauritius, 1940, part III, Research, Botany, pp. 17–29.Google Scholar
24.Hutson, J. C. (1926). Prickly Pear and Cochineal insects.—Trop. Agriculturist, 67 (5), pp. 1–3, 2 pls.Google Scholar
25.Icery, M. E. (1864). Mémoire sur le Pou à poche blanche, 8 pp., 6 pls., Mauritius.Google Scholar
26.Jepson, W. F. (1936). Report on the search for parasites for Phytalus Smithi, Arrow, 66 pp., 7 maps, 3 app.Google Scholar
27.Jepson, W. F. (1936). A summary of the results of the Phytalus investigations 1933–36 with recommendations as to further lines of work, 19 pp.Google Scholar
28.Jepson, W. F. (1939). Progress in parasite investigation during 1938.—Rev. agric. Maurice, no. 105, pp. 82–84.Google Scholar
29.Jepson, W. F. (1939). Rep. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, 1937, 41–46 pp.Google Scholar
30.Jepson, W. F. (1939). Op. cit., 1938, pp. 40–51.Google Scholar
31.Jepson, W. F. (1941). Op. cit., 1939, pp. 16–19.Google Scholar
32.Jepson, W. F.. & Moutia, L. A. (1939). The progress of applied entomology in Mauritius during the years 1933–38 with reference to insects of the sugar-cane.—Proc. int. Soc. Sugar-Cane Tech., 6, pp. 377–383.Google Scholar
33.Jepson, W. F. & Regnard, L. P. (1931). The parasites of Melolonthids at Nossi Bé Madagascar.—Int. Sugar J., 38, pp. 414–415.Google Scholar
34.Jepson, W. F. & Wiehe, P. O. (1939). Pineapple wilt in Mauritius.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, Gen. Ser., no. 47, 15 pp., 2 app.Google Scholar
35.Langeron, M. (1910). Remarques stir la ponte du Stomoxys calcitrans et l'élevage des larves de Muscides.—C.R. Soc. Biol., 1910, p. 231.Google Scholar
36.Mamet, R. (1941). A new mealybug attacking pineapple plants in Mauritius.—Bull. ent. Res., 32, pp. 57–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Mamet, R. (1943). A revised list of the Coccoidea of the Islands of the Western Indian Ocean, south of the equator.—Mauritius Inst. Bull., 2, pp. 137–170, 1 map.Google Scholar
38.Mamet, R. & Durocher-Yvon, F. (1941). La lutte contre les termites à Maurice et l'application de l'arsenic pour combattre ces insectes.—Rev. agric. Maurice, no. 20, pp. 59–61.Google Scholar
39.Manders, N. (1905). Surra as it occurs in Mauritius.—J. roy. Army med. Cps., no. 5, pp. 623–626.Google Scholar
40.Moutia, L. A. (1928). Surra in Mauritius and its principal vector, Stomoxys nigra.—Bull. ent. Res., 19, pp. 211–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.Moutia, L. A. (1928). Le surra à Maurice et son principal vecteur, Stomoxys nigra.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, Sci. Ser., no. 12, pp. 12.Google Scholar
42.Moutia, L. A. (1932). Rep. Dep. Agric. Mauritius. 1931, pp. 9–12.Google Scholar
43.Moutia, L. A. (1933). Op. cit., 1932, pp. 43–51. 2 app., 2 figs.Google Scholar
44.Moutia, L. A. (1933). Report on missions sent to Madagascar in search of parasites in connection with the Phytalus problem in Mauritius, 6 pp., 5 app., 1 map, 12 photos.Google Scholar
45.Moutia, L. A. (1933). Le statut actuel des insectes nuisibles et des insectes utiles à l'agriculture de 1'Ile Maurice.—Rev. agric. Maurice. no. 70, pp. 144–148.Google Scholar
46.Moutia, L. A. (1934). The sugar–cane moth borers in Mauritius.—Bull. ent. Res., 25, pp. 33–41, 1 pl.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47.Moutia, L. A. (1934). Rep. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, 1933, pp. 25–29.Google Scholar
48.Moutia, L. A. (1935). Op. cit., 1934, pp. 25–26.Google Scholar
49.Moutia, L. A. (1935). The commoner insect pests of orchards, vegetable and flower gardens in Mauritius.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, Gen. Ser., no. 44, 39 pp.Google Scholar
50.Moutia, L. A. (1935). Notes sur un nouveau moyen de lutte contre le pou blanc ou Icerya seychellarum, West.—Leafl. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, no. 39, 4pp.Google Scholar
51.Moutia, L. A. (1936). The sugar-cane white grub. Lachnosterna (Phytalus) smithi. Arrow, in Mauritius.—Proc. mt. Soc. Sugar-cane Tech., 5, pp. 436–445.Google Scholar
52.Moutia, L. A. (1936). Termites in Mauritius.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, Sci. Ser., no. 21, 30 pp., 3 pls., 18 photos.Google Scholar
53.Moutia, L. A. (1936). Rep. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, 1935, pp. 30–33.Google Scholar
54.Moutia, L. A. (1937). Op. cit., 1936, pp. 37–39.Google Scholar
55.Moutia, L. A. (1937). Notes sur l'introduction à Maurice de nouveaux prédateurs de la Cochenille du cocotier, Aspidiotus destructor, Signoret.—Rev. agric. Maurice., no. 95, pp. 164–165.Google Scholar
56.Moutia, L. A. (1937). Unpublished report on breeding places of Stomoxys nigra in Mauritius.Google Scholar
57.Moutia, L. A. (1940). The search for parasites of white grubs (Melolonthids) in Zanzibar, Algeria, Morocco and France.—Bull. ent. Res., 31, pp. 193–208, 4 pls., figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58.Moutia, L. A. (1941). Rep. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, 1940, pp. 14–16.Google Scholar
59.Moutia, L. A. (1942). Op. cit., 1941, pp. 14–21.Google Scholar
60.Moutia, L. A. (1943). Op. cit., 1942, pp. 12–16.Google Scholar
61.Moutia, L. A. (1943). Commoner insect pests of orchards, foodcrops, vegetable and flower gardens in Mauritius.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, Gen. Ser., no. 49, 49 pp.Google Scholar
62.Moutia, L. A. (1944). The sugar-cane scale, Aulacaspis tegalensis, Zehnt.—Bull. ent. Res., 35, pp. 69–77, 2 figs., 1 pl.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63.Moutia, L. A. (1944). Rep. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, 1943, pp. 12–15.Google Scholar
64.Patton, W. S. (1933). Studies on the higher Diptera of medical and veterinary importance.—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 27, p. 513.Google Scholar
65.Regnard, L. P. (1937–1940). Unpublished reports.Google Scholar
66.Roberts, H. (1911). Les moutoucs.—Bull. agric. Maurice., 1911, p. 452.Google Scholar
67.Roberts, H. (1911). Les borers et les moutoucs.—Bull. agric. Maurice., 1911, p. 512.Google Scholar
68.Saulnier, J. M. (1916). La lutte contre les sauterelles dans divers pays.—Inst. int. Agric., Rome., xvi+187 pp.Google Scholar
69.Shepherd, E. F. S. (1934). Rep. Dep. Agric. Mauritius, 1933, pp. 21–23.Google Scholar
70.Sornay, P. de. (1939). Le martin.—Rev. agric. Maurice. no. 104, pp. 52–57.Google Scholar
71.Tams, W. H. T. (1942). Note on the name of the sugar-cane borer in Mauritius.—Bull. ent. Res., 33, pp. 67–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
72.Taylor, T. H. C. (1935). The campaign against Aspidiotus destructor Sign. in Fiji.—Bull. ent. Res., 26, pp. 1–100, 40 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73.Travis, B. V. (1943). Further tests with thallium baits for control of the fire ant.—J. econ. Ent., 36, pp. 56–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74.Vaughan, R. E.. & Wiehe, P. O. (1937). Studies on the vegetation of Mauritius. I.—J. Ecol., 25, pp. 289–343, 10 pls., 12 figs., 2 maps.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
75.Vinson, J. (1941). Rectification d'une erreur courante relative à l'espèce de Diatraea s'attaquant à la canne à sucre à Maurice.—Rev. agric. Maurice., no. 20, pp. 148–153.Google Scholar
76.Vinson, J. (1942). Biological control of Diatraea mauriciella, Wlk., in Mauritius.—Bull. ent. Res., 33, pp. 39–65, 7 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
77.Vinson, J. (1942). Une deuxième espèce de “mouche boeuf” à Maurice, Stomoxys calcitrans Linnè.—Rev. agric. Maurice., 21, pp. 127–128, 2 figs.Google Scholar
78.Wiehe, P. O. (1939). Rep. Dep. Agric. Mauritius 1938, pp. 34–39.Google Scholar