Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Search Advanced

AIMS Agriculture and Food

2023, Volume 8, Issue 3: 736-761. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023040
Previous Article Next Article
Review

Mealybug vectors: A review of their transmission of plant viruses and their management strategies

  • 1.
    Ondokuz Mayis University, School of Agriculture, Kurupelit Campus, 55139 Atakum / Samsun, Turkey
  • 2.
    Technological University Dublin, School of Food Science and Environmental Health Dublin 7, Ireland
  • 3.
    Erciyes University, School of Agriculture, Baytop Sokak No:1 38280 Talas / Kayseri, Turkey
  • Received: 03 February 2023 Revised: 09 May 2023 Accepted: 15 June 2023 Published: 12 July 2023

  • Mealybugs cause mechanical damage and diseases to plants. Through their feeding activities, they reduce the yield, quality and productivity of crops. This review discusses mealybug vectors of plant viruses, the economic losses they cause, mealybug species and their hosts. Among the numerous mealybug species, Planococcus species are the most effective vector of plant viruses, transmitting many Ampeloviruses. Diverse methods for the control and regulation of mealybugs are also discussed. Physical, cultural and biological control methods are labor-intensive but environmentally friendly compared to chemical methods. However, chlorpyrifos are one the active ingredients of insecticides effective against several mealybug species. Using plant products such as neem oil as a biocontrol method has been effective, similar to other insecticides. Notwithstanding, the biological method of controlling mealybugs is effectively slow but safe and highly recommended. The Anagyrus species have the highest success rate amongst other natural parasites of mealybugs. Also, farm sanitation and pruning as cultural methods help reduce mealybug populations.

    Citation: Abdul Razak Ahmed, Samuel Obeng Apori, Abdul Aziz Karim. Mealybug vectors: A review of their transmission of plant viruses and their management strategies[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(3): 736-761. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023040

    Related Papers:

    [1] Justyna Nasiłowska, Barbara Sokołowska, Monika Fonberg-Broczek . Escherichia coli and Listeria innocua stability in carrot juice preserved by high hydrostatic pressure. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2022, 7(3): 623-636. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022039
    [2] María Cámara-Ruiz, José María García Beltrán, Francisco Antonio Guardiola, María Ángeles Esteban . In vitro and in vivo effects of purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) on gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata L.). AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(4): 799-824. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.4.799
    [3] Nelson Mpumi, Revocatus L. Machunda, Kelvin M. Mtei, Patrick A. Ndakidemi . Insecticidal Efficacy of Syzygium aromaticum, Tephrosia vogelii and Croton dichogamus Extracts against Plutella xylostella and Trichoplusia ni on Brassica oleracea crop in Northern Tanzania. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1): 185-202. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021012
    [4] Gregorio Gullo, Antonio Dattola, Vincenzo Vonella, Rocco Zappia . Performance of the Brasiliano 92 orange cultivar with six trifoliate rootstocks. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1): 203-215. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021013
    [5] Jaquelinne Pires Vital da Costa, Camila Fernanda Dias de Oliveira, Francielo Vendruscolo . Cheese whey as a potential substrate for Monascus pigments production. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(4): 785-798. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.4.785
    [6] The Han Nguyen, Patrick Achiever Blamo Jr, Xiaoyong Liu, Thi Van Anh Tran, Sang Moo Kim . β-Glucuronidase inhibitory activity of bromophenol isolated from red alga Grateloupia lancifolia. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(2): 551-559. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021032
    [7] Heru Irianto, Mujiyo Mujiyo, Aulia Qonita, Ato Sulistyo, Erlyna Wida Riptanti . The development of jarak towo cassava as a high economical raw material in sustainability-based food processing industry. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1): 125-141. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021008
    [8] John Samelis, Athanasia Kakouri . Major technological differences between an industrial-type and five artisan-type Greek PDO Galotyri market cheeses as revealed by great variations in their lactic acid microbiota. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(3): 685-710. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.685
    [9] Luciano Cavani, Alja Margon, Luigi Sciubba, Claudio Ciavatta, Claudio Marzadori . What we talk about when we talk about protein hydrolyzate-based biostimulants. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2017, 2(3): 221-232. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2017.3.221
    [10] Johan Sukweenadhi, Eloqui Viectorica Wiranata, Ida Bagus Made Artadana, Kang-Se Chang . Isolation and in vitro screening of plant growth promoting bacteria from rhizosphere and root tissues of potato tuber (Solanum tuberosum L.). AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(4): 1028-1037. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023055

  • Mealybugs cause mechanical damage and diseases to plants. Through their feeding activities, they reduce the yield, quality and productivity of crops. This review discusses mealybug vectors of plant viruses, the economic losses they cause, mealybug species and their hosts. Among the numerous mealybug species, Planococcus species are the most effective vector of plant viruses, transmitting many Ampeloviruses. Diverse methods for the control and regulation of mealybugs are also discussed. Physical, cultural and biological control methods are labor-intensive but environmentally friendly compared to chemical methods. However, chlorpyrifos are one the active ingredients of insecticides effective against several mealybug species. Using plant products such as neem oil as a biocontrol method has been effective, similar to other insecticides. Notwithstanding, the biological method of controlling mealybugs is effectively slow but safe and highly recommended. The Anagyrus species have the highest success rate amongst other natural parasites of mealybugs. Also, farm sanitation and pruning as cultural methods help reduce mealybug populations.


    1.   Introduction

    Alcohol Use Disorders (AUD) affect approximately 76 million people worldwide and about half a million people in Sub Saharan Africa [2] According to Global status report on alcohol and health 2018 [3], the harmful use of alcohol is one of the leading risk factors for population health worldwide and has a direct impact on many health-related targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including those for maternal and child health, infectious diseases (HIV, viral hepatitis, tuberculosis), none communicable diseases and mental health, injuries and poisonings. Alcohol production and consumption is highly relevant to many other goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Alcohol per capita consumption per year in liters of pure alcohol is one of two indicators for SDG health target 3.5—“Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol”. Particularly alcohol dependence is associated with a high disease burden and with mortality: about two-thirds of all alcohol-related mortality is caused by the 4% of alcohol users with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence [4]. Therefore, prevention and treatment of, especially severe, AUD should be considered a public health priority. In order to plan prevention and treatment, information is needed about AUD, their course and their risk indicators in the general population. However, current knowledge is strongly skewed because of the emphasis of research on AUD in clinical samples, i.e. the subetaoup of people who entered treatment and often have very severe AUD and serious comorbidity. However, most people with an alcohol use disorder do not enter treatment [5]. Although longitudinal population-based research is costly and complex, it is crucial to increase our understanding of demographic and social cultural characteristics of AUD in the general population, such as age, sex, religion, presence of parents of the disorder, level of impairment, consumption level and comorbid psychopathology.

    Notably, the few existing community studies suggest that AUD in the general population are generally milder than in clinical samples and that valid notions in clinical samples may not be true in the general population (e.g. an alcohol use disorder is inherently related to excessive drinking; an AUD is a chronic illness; all people with an AUD need treatment) [6]. Hence, besides identification of those groups in the general population that are more likely to develop alcohol problems, examination of the disorder itself in the general population is crucial. Among others, these studies should investigate the following questions: to which degree are AUD related to the level of alcohol intake, what determines whether individuals reach (stable) remission while others do not, and is treatment seeking related to the level of drinking or the severity of the AUD? Therefore, this thesis maps the onset, course and treatment of AUD in the general population. It examines potential risk indicators of a severe or persistent disorder with specific consideration for possible effects of the level of alcohol intake.

    1.1.   Screening tools for AUD

    Various screening instruments have been developed to measure alcohol intake and diagnose AUD. The most frequently used screening tool is the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) [6]. The quantity and frequency of alcohol intake is based on self-reports involving calendar methods, particularly the alcohol Timeline Follow Back calendar (TLFB) [7]. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview questionnaire (MINI), based on DSM IV/ICD 10, is a recommended tool for clinical assessment of 13 psychiatric conditions including AUD, however, this tool has to be administered by trained medical personnel; MINI is a gold standard for the diagnosis of AUD in the context of clinical psychiatric assessments [6]. Other tools include AUDIT-C, the Single Alcohol Use Screening Question (SASQ), CAGE4 and FAST5 [8]. Most of these tools have been developed, validated, and are widely used in developed world settings. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), a self-report alcohol screening tool for excessive drinking developed by WHO, has been used in both high and low income countries and recommended for use in primary care settings among adults [9]. A shorter version of AUDIT, the AUDIT-C that includes the first three questions of AUDIT on alcohol consumption is effective in AUD screening [9].

    The Time Line Follow Back (TLFB) calendar method that also relies on self-reported information (in terms of quantity and frequency) has been mainly applied in high-income settings [8]. Because AUDIT and TLFB have been shown to be useful tools for alcohol screening in young people in some settings [9], they are potentially useful to inform alcohol interventions among young people in Africa as well; however, they have not yet been validated among such populations.

    1.2.   Extent of alcohol consumption in Kenya

    An addiction to alcohol is known to wreak havoc on the body and negatively affect the life of the individual and the lives of those he or she loves. In Kenya, it appears to have a marked effect, creating dysfunctional and emotionally stunted families. Central region has a history of excessive alcohol consumption and idleness due the high unemployment rate that hits the area [7],[10]. The situation has gone from bad to worse: the women in the province have staged several protest demonstrations in a bid to stop brewers from selling alcoholic drinks to their husbands and sons who have become economically and socially unproductive because of spending most of their valuable time drinking alcohol instead of engaging in other productive activities. A prominent cabinet minister was reported to have suggested that men from other provinces be shipped in to help impregnate the women as the local men could no longer reproduce: replacing one social issue with another.

    Alcoholism is not only rampant in Muranga County, but it is a growing concern in the area due to the many cases of marital irresponsibility, social crimes, and other illegal acts that have soared among the alcohol addicts in the area that have raised the concern. For instance, the bar owners continue to report strong revenues as customers are guaranteed drunkenness every night. While consistent drinking in bars appears to cut through ethnicity, region, race and social class, the situation seems worse in Muranga County. While visiting bars is viewed as a social activity in many countries, in Kenya it is purely a male pastime [11]. The purpose is not to socialize or spend time with spouses as done in other countries; it is to drink until the money runs out or the drinker collapses. There is a suggested phenomenon that man who stay home with their families are considered to be “sissies” and insecure: men must visit the bar to asset their masculinity [12]. Whatever the motivation, the reality is that the male obsession with alcohol in Kenya has a far-reaching impact that could be difficult to reverse. There have been numerous cases of young men who lost their lives after consuming tainted alcohol: also called the killer brew. Others have lost their sight as a result of consuming alcohol with methanol. Since many alcohol consumers don't have a steady source of income, they turn to the consumption of lethal illicit brews which have dire physical consequences such loss of sight, healthy problems and in some cases could lead to death.

    The main objective of this study was to ascertain the socio-cultural factors determining AUD among the rural population of Muranga County in Kenya. The study was hinged on the tenets of the Social cognitive theory [14] by Bandura. According to the theory, certain behaviors are practiced so long as they could be justified. As such, use of alcohol and the ultimate AUD could be contextualized within culture and justified as such. Going by this argument, users of alcohol develop AUD when they begin to justify their use of alcohol on cultural, environmental and social factors.

    2.   Methodology

    This was a descriptive cross-sectional study design utilizing both quantitative and quantitative data collection methods. The study was conducted in Muranga county of Kenya and targeted alcohol users residing within the County. Muranga County is one of the 47 counties in Kenya. According to the Kenya Population and Housing Census of 2009, the county has a population of 942,581. The study focused on all female and male adults aged 18–65 years of sound mind currently using alcohol in Muranga County in Kenya. A total of 385 respondents were sampled based on the Krejcie, Robert, Morgan and Daryle sampling method [12] to participate in the study. AUDIT tool was adopted for the quantitative data while qualitative data was collected using qualitative interview guide based on AUDIT themes.

    2.1.   Demographic characteristic of study population

    Demographic factors considered included gender, religion, marital status, employment status, age and availability of parents. Table 1 below presents the demographic characteristics of the respondents.

    Of the sampled respondents, about 62.6% were male while 37.4% were female. Christian protestants comprised 67.8% of the sampled population. Those who indicated that they professed Christian catholic religion were 24.2% while those of Islamic religion were 6.2%. About 45.6% of the respondents indicated that they were married, 23.6% single and 16.4% divorced. Majority 42.6% indicated that they had secondary school levels of education. Those with complete primary school education were 11.8% while those with incomplete primary school levels of education were 11.6%. Those with college and university levels of education were 21.2% and 10.4% respectively.

    From Table 1, about 32.3% of the sampled respondents indicated that they were employed as casual labourers. Those who were civil servants comprised 25.2% of the respondents while the self-employed were 21.5%. Along age, respondents who were aged between 21–30 years were 25.9%. Respondents aged 31–40 were 33% of the total population while those aged between 41–50 years were 22.9%. Only 6.7% of the respondents were aged 20 years and below. Most of the respondents, 32.3 were casual labourers. Only 21.5% and 25.2% of the respondents indicated that they were self-employed and civil servants respectively. Also 47.4% of the respondents indicated that both their parents were living, 17.9% that their mothers were deceased and 22.3% that their fathers were deceased. Only 12.4% of the respondents indicated that both of their parents were deceased.

    Table 1.  Demographic characteristics of the respondents.
    Frequency Percent
    Gender Male 239 62.6
    Female 142 37.4
    Religion Christian Catholic 92 24.2
    Christian protestant 258 67.8
    Muslim 24 6.2
    No religion 7 1.8
    Marital status Married 174 45.6
    Single 90 23.6
    Divorced 62 16.4
    Widow/Widower 55 14.4
    Highest level of education No formal education 9 2.4
    Primary Incomplete 44 11.6
    Primary Complete 45 11.8
    Secondary 162 42.6
    College 81 21.2
    University 40 10.4
    Employment status Unemployed 80 21
    Civil servant 96 25.2
    Self-employed 82 21.5
    Casual labor 123 32.3
    Age ≤ 20 26 6.7
    21–30 99 25.9
    31–40 126 33
    41–50 87 22.9
    51 ≤ 44 11.5
    Availability of parents Both parents Living 181 47.4
    Mother deceased 68 17.9
    Father deceased 85 22.3
    Both parents deceased 47 12.4
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    3.   Results

    3.1.   Extent of Alcohol Use Disorder

    Alcohol Use Disorder was investigated using AUDIT tool. Table 2 below presents the findings. The findings of the AUDIT as indicated in Table 2 above indicates that about 44.6% of the respondents indicated that they took drinks containing alcohol 2–3 times a week. Another 33.9% indicated that their consumption of drinks containing alcohol was 4 or more times a week. On the number of drinks containing alcohol taken on a typical day when drinking, 38.6% and 23.6% of the respondents indicated that they took 3 or 4 and 7, 8 or 9 respectively drinks containing alcohol on typical days. Further, 46.5% of the respondents indicated that they took six or more drinks in one occasion less than monthly while 24.7% indicated that they took six or more drinks on one occasion on a monthly basis.

    Table 2.  Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test.
    Frequency Percent
    How often do you have a drink containing alcohol? Monthly or less 18 4.7
    2 to 4 times a month 64 16.8
    2 to 3 times a week 170 44.6
    4 or more times a week 129 33.9
    How many drinks containing alcohol do you have on a typical day when you are drinking? 1 or 2 55 14.4
    3 or 4 147 38.6
    5 or 6 82 21.5
    7, 8, or 9 90 23.6
    10 or more 8 2.1
    How often do you have six or more drinks on one occasion? Never 53 13.9
    Less than monthly 177 46.5
    Monthly 94 24.7
    Weekly 30 7.9
    Daily or almost daily 26 6.8
    How often during the last year have you found that you were not able to stop drinking once you had started? Never 5 1.3
    Less than monthly 66 17.3
    Monthly 122 32.0
    Weekly 75 19.7
    Daily or almost daily 113 29.7
    How often during the last year have you failed to do what was normally expected from you because of drinking? Never 119 31.2
    Less than monthly 48 12.6
    Monthly 86 22.6
    Weekly 58 15.2
    Daily or almost daily 69 18.1
    How often during the last year have you been unable to remember what happened the night before because you had been drinking? Never 127 33.3
    Less than monthly 71 18.6
    Monthly 80 21.0
    Weekly 89 23.4
    Daily or almost daily 13 3.4
    How often during the last year have you needed an alcoholic drink first thing in the morning to get yourself going after a night of heavy drinking? Never 64 16.8
    Less than monthly 42 11.0
    Monthly 54 14.2
    Weekly 149 39.1
    Daily or almost daily 72 18.9
    How often during the last year have you had a feeling of guilt or remorse after drinking? Never 8 2.1
    Less than monthly 51 13.4
    Monthly 77 20.2
    Weekly 114 29.9
    Daily or almost daily 132 34.6
    Have you or someone else been injured as a result of your drinking? No 138 36.2
    Yes, but not in the last year 85 22.3
    Yes, during the last year 158 41.5
    Has a relative, friend, doctor, or another health professional expressed concern about your drinking or suggested you cut down? No 48 12.6
    Yes, but not in the last year 144 37.8
    Yes, during the last year 189 49.6
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Asked to indicate occurrence of situations where they found that they were not able to stop drinking once they started drinking, 32% indicated that this occurred on a monthly basis. About 29.7% indicated that this occurred daily or almost daily. Another 19.7% indicated that this occurred on a weekly basis. About 22.6% and 18.1% respectively of the respondents indicated that they often failed to do what was normally expected from them because on drinking on monthly and daily or almost daily basis. However, 31.2% indicated that this never occurred to them. Further, 23.4% and 21% of the respondents indicated that they failed to remember what happened the night before because you they had been drinking on a weekly and monthly basis respectively. Another 33.3% however indicated that this never occurred.

    On occasions when respondents needed alcoholic drinks first thing in the morning to get themselves going after a night of heavy drinking, 39.1% and 18.9% indicated that this occurred on a weekly and daily or almost daily occasions respectively. About 34.6% of the respondents indicated that they had a feeling of guilt or remorse after drinking on a daily or almost daily basis. Another 29.9% and 20.2% of the respondents indicated that this occurred on a weekly and monthly basis respectively.

    About 41.5% of the respondents indicated that they or someone else had been injured as a result of their drinking during the last year, 22.3% not in the last year while 36.2% indicated that this never occurred. Further, about 49.6% of the respondents indicated that a relative, friend, doctor, or another health professional expressed concern about their drinking or suggested they cut down during the last year. Another 37.8% indicated that this happened but not in the previous year. Only 12.6% indicated that this never occurred.

    Figure 1.  Proportions with AUD.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    Following the AUDIT guidelines, scores for individual respondents were computed so as to come up with the percentage of the respondents with AUD. Respondents with 8 or more scores are interpreted as having AUD. Figure 1 below presents the findings

    The findings of the study indicate that about 65% of the respondents had scores of 8 or more. Only 35% had scores less than 8.

    3.2.   Socio-cultural factors influencing Alcohol Use Disorder

    In order to investigate the socio-cultural factors influencing AUD, respondents were requested to respond to a series of questions indicating their opinion or perceptions. Their responses were cross tabulated against their AUDIT scores. Table 3 below presents the findings

    Table 3.  Socio-cultural factors influencing AUD.
    Variable Scores Total CL (95%) P-value
    Less than 8 8 and more
    Does your father use alcohol Yes 53 (28.0%) 136 (72.0%) 189 (49.6%) 1 0.012067
    No 81 (40.1%) 121 (59.9%) 202 (53.0%) 0.58 (0.38–0.89)
    Does mother use alcohol Yes 12 (27.3%) 32 (72.7%) 44 (11.5%) 1 0.243387
    No 122 (36.2%) 215 (63.8%) 337 (88.5%) 0.66 (0.33–1.33)
    Does any of your siblings use alcohol Yes 34 (37.4%) 57 (62.6%) 91 (23.9%) 1 0.615707
    No 100 (34.5%) 190 (65.5%) 290 (76.1%) 1.13 (0.70–1.85)
    Any other family members who use alcohol Yes 32 (35.6%) 58 (64.4%) 90 (23.6%) 1 0.930265
    No 102 (35.1%) 189 (64.9%) 291 (76.4%) 1.02 (0.62–1.68)
    Was alcohol brewed or available at home Yes 2 (3.9%) 49 (96.1%) 51 (13.4%) 1 < 0.001
    No 132 (40.0%) 198 (60.0%) 330 (86.6%) 0.06 (0.01–0.26)
    Is any member of your family struggling with alcohol abuse Yes 43 (21.1%) 161 (78.9%) 204 (53.5%) 1 < 0.001
    No 91 (51.4%) 86 (48.6%) 177 (46.5%) 0.25 (0.16–0.39)
    Do cultural beliefs and practices advance usage of alcohol in your community Yes 22 (9.3%) 214 (90.7%) 236 (61.9%) 1 < 0.001
    No 112 (79.4%) 29 (20.6%) 141 (37.0%) 0.03 (0.01–0.05)
    Do you think people resort to alcohol use to deal with life stresses Yes 119 (43.3%) 156 (56.7%) 275 (72.2%) 1 < 0.001
    No 15 (14.2%) 91 (85.8%) 106 (27.8%) 4.68 (2.55–8.40)
    Does the environment in your community favor the use of alcohol Yes 64 (30.3%) 147 (69.7%) 211 (55.4%) 1 0.027548
    No 70 (41.2%) 100 (58.8%) 170 (44.6%) 0.62 (0.41–0.95)
    Peer influence is the cause of alcohol use Yes 64 (30.0%) 149 (70.0%) 213 (55.9%) 1 0.018358
    No 70 (41.7%) 98 (58.3%) 168 (44.1%) 0.6 (0.39–0.92)
    Do you think religion restrains alcohol use Yes 64 (32.8%) 131 (67.2%) 195 (51.2%) 1 0.325297
    No 70 (37.6%) 116 (62.4%) 186 (48.8%) 0.81 (0.53–1.23)
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The findings of the study as indicated in Table 3 above indicates that use of alcohol by father, brewing of alcohol or availability of alcohol at home and perceptions on positive relationship between cultural beliefs and alcohol abuse were found to be of statistically significant relationship with AUD. Also, the study found that presence of a family members struggling alcohol abuse, opinion that people people resort to alcohol use to deal with life stresses. This was also true of the perceptions that environment and peer influence favor use of alcohol (p < 0.05).

    About 72% of the respondents who indicated that their father used alcohol also had AUD. Those whose fathers did not use alcohol were 0.58 times (CL = 0.38–0.89) less likely to develop AUD.

    When respondents indicated that alcohol was brewed or available at home, 96.1% of them also hade AUD with an odd of 0.06 for those indicating otherwise. Respondents who indicated that at least a member of their family was struggling with alcohol abuse had 78.9% of them with AUD as compared to 48.6% of them who indicated otherwise. The odds ratio obtained against family members struggling with alcohol was 0.25.

    The study also established that when respondents indicated that cultural belief practices do not advance usage of alcohol, they were only 0.03 times more likely to exhibit AUD. On the contrary, about 90.7% of those who indicated that cultural practices advance usage of alcohol had AUD symptoms. Majority (85.8%) of the respondents who indicated a contrary opinion to that that people resort to alcohol use to deal with life stresses had AUD symptoms. The odds of those with the contrary opinion showing symptoms of AUD was established to be 4.68. Further, 69.7% of the respondents who indicated that their environment (community) favored use of alcohol also had AUD symptoms (Odds ratio = 0.62, CL = 0.41–0.95). As to whether peer influence caused alcohol use, 70% of those with similar opinion also had AUD. The odd of contrary opinion was established to be 0.6 (CL = 0.39–0.92).

    4.   Discussion

    4.1.   Extent of Alcohol Use Disorder

    The study established that about 65% of alcohol users in Muranga County have symptoms of AUD had scores of 8 or more. Most users of alcohol in the county took drinks containing alcohol 2–3 times a week. They also took 3 or 4 drinks containing alcohol on a typical day when drinking. Such individuals took six or more drinks in one occasion less than. A majority of them on a monthly basis found that they were not able to stop drinking once they started drinking within the previous year. Most of them could remember what happened the night before because you they had been drinking. On a weekly basis, such alcohol users needed alcoholic drinks first thing in the morning to get themselves going after a night of heavy drinking. Also, most of them had a feeling of guilt or remorse after drinking on a daily or almost daily basis. Further, most of the alcohol users in Muranga County indicated that they or someone else had been injured as a result of their drinking during the last year. Finally, most alcohol users in Muranga County had a relative, friend, doctor, or another health professional expressing concern about their drinking or suggesting they cut down during the last year.

    These findings lead to an understanding that about 7 out of 10 users of alcohol in Muranga County are suffering from AUD. The Key Informant Interviews also reveal a possibility of high percentages of alcohol users with AUD. In an interview with a NACADA regional officer, it emerged that

    Many people actually suffer from drug and alcohol abuse. Most people in this area have reached a point where they can't function without alcohol. They depend so much on alcohol and the net effect is that they become sick and weak to the extent that they are not able to perform their duties (KII, NACADA).

    The high percentage of individuals with AUD symptoms in the study area is not unique since WHO (2019) had indicated that about 76.3 million are diagnosed with AUD. Growing number of alcohol users could also be a factor contributing to the high number of persons with AUD symptoms.

    4.2.   Socio-cultural factors influencing Alcohol Use Disorder

    With regard to the Socio-Cultural factors influencing AUD, this study establishes that Individuals with AUD had the following socio-cultural characteristics:

    • Father uses alcohol.
    • Alcohol is brewed or available at home.
    • Believe that there is a positive relationship between cultural beliefs and alcohol abuse.
    • Have family members struggling alcohol abuse.
    • Have opinion that people resort to alcohol use to deal with life stresses.
    • Perceive environment to be favoring use of alcohol.
    • Perceive peer influence to be pushing people to take alcohol.

    The Key Informant Interviews conducted also revealed that among other factors, the environment and peer influence influenced AUD. In an interview with a medical officer, it emerged that some people engage in alcohol abuse because it is fashionable to do so and that the environment played a role as well. The medical officer posed that:

    Here in Muranga County, people take alcohol because everyone else is taking it. People meet at the bars to discuss issues affecting them, to run away from stressors and to have time together with friends. In such an environment, it becomes difficult not to drink (KII, MO).

    These findings may lead to an understanding that alcohol users whose fathers are using alcohol are also likely to develop AUD. It is possible to conclude that fathers play a role in regulating uncontrolled behaviors. This finding is in line with the arguments advanced by the psycho-social theory [13] where it is postulated that certain behaviors are either reinforced negatively or positively reinforced by significant people in our lives. Going by this argument, it is possible that alcohol users whose fathers were also using alcohol experienced positive reinforcement in their alcoholic behaviors. The same reasoning could also be advanced for cases where alcohol was brewed or was available at home as well as where a family member was struggling with alcohol abuse.

    The study established that beliefs and perceptions justifying taking of alcohol also influenced development of AUD. This finding is hinged on the tenets of the social cognitive theory [14] by Bandura. According to the social cognitive theory, certain behaviors are practiced so long as they could be justified. Going by this argument, users of alcohol develop AUD when they begin to justify their use of alcohol on cultural, environmental and social factors.

    5.   Conclusion and recommendations

    The study concludes that about 65% of alcohol users in Muranga County have symptoms of AUD. The socio-cultural factors influencing AUD include fathers of alcohol, brewing or availability of alcohol at home, belief that that there is a positive relationship between cultural beliefs and alcohol abuse, presence of family members struggling alcohol abuse, having opinion that people resort to alcohol use to deal with life stresses, perception of the environment to be favoring use of alcohol and perception of peer influence to be pushing people to take alcohol.

    The study revealed that a large proportion of alcohol users in Muranga County have AUD symptoms. The study also established that socio-cultural factors influence AUD. The study recommends other studies to ascertain prevalence of AUD separate for urban and rural areas. Such studies could include other methods for testing alcohol use.

    Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that sensitizations and awareness drives about alcohol abuse could be organized by the Ministry of health and NACADA on the worrying trends of AUD together with their associated morbidities. Such drives could address the demographic and socio-cultural factors associated with AUD. The study also recommends deliberate efforts towards implementation of sound policies aimed at curbing the growth of the AUD in the study population.



    [1] World Bank (2018) World Development Indicators, United Nations Population Division. World Population Prospects: 2019 Revision.
    [2] The World Bank (2021) Thailand Healthcare Spending, WDI-Home.
    [3] Vollset SE, Goren E, Yuan CW, et al. (2020) Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: A forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 396: 1285–1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2
    [4] Procheş Ş, Wilson JRU, Vamosi JC, et al. (2008) Plant diversity in the human diet: Weak phylogenetic signal indicates breadth. Bioscience 58: 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580209 doi: 10.1641/B580209
    [5] Ficke A, Cowger C, Bergstrom G, et al. (2018) Understanding yield loss and pathogen biology to improve disease management: Septoria nodorum blotch—A case study in wheat. Plant Dis 102: 696–707. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-09-17-1375-FE doi: 10.1094/PDIS-09-17-1375-FE
    [6] Wang A, Krishnaswamy S (2012) Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E-mediated recessive resistance to plant viruses and its utility in crop improvement. Mol Plant Pathol 13: 795–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2012.00791.x doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2012.00791.x
    [7] Ali Şevik M, Akyazi F, Karantina Müdürlüğü Z (2008) Bitki Patojeni Virüslerin Bitki Parazit Nematodlarla Taşınması. Batı Akdeniz Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü Derim Derg 25: 1–12.
    [8] Heck M (2018) Insect transmission of plant pathogens: A systems biology perspective. mSystems 3: e00168-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00168-17 doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00168-17
    [9] Shi X, Zhang Z, Zhang C, et al. (2021) The molecular mechanism of efficient transmission of plant viruses in variable virus–vector–plant interactions. Hortic Plant J 7: 501–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpj.2021.04.006 doi: 10.1016/j.hpj.2021.04.006
    [10] Cid M, Fereres A (2010) Characterization of the probing and feeding behavior of planococcus citri (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on grapevine. Ann Entomol Soc Am 103: 404–417. https://doi.org/10.1603/AN09079 doi: 10.1603/AN09079
    [11] Wielkopolan B, Jakubowska M, Obrępalska-Stęplowska A (2021) Beetles as plant pathogen vectors. Front Plant Sci 12: 748093. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.748093 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.748093
    [12] Bandte M, Pestemer W, Büttner C, et al. (2009) Ecological aspects of plant viruses in tomato and pathogen risk assessment. Acta Hortic 821: 161–168. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.821.17 doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.821.17
    [13] Jones DR (2005) Plant viruses transmitted by thrips. Eur J Plant Pathol 113: 119–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-005-2334-1 doi: 10.1007/s10658-005-2334-1
    [14] Krishnareddy M (2013) Impact of climate change on insect vectors and vector-borne plant viruses and phytoplasma. In: Singh HCP, Rao NKS, Shivashankar KS (Eds.), Climate-Resilient Horticulture: Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies, Chapter 23, Springer, 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-0974-4_23
    [15] Zimmer R, Mpyers K, Haber S, et al. (1992) Tomato spotted wilt virus, a problem on grass pea and field pea in the greenhouse in 1990 and 1991. Can Plant Dis Surv 72: 29–31.
    [16] Dawidowicz Ł, Rozwałka R (2016) Honeydew Moth Cryptoblabes gnidiella (MILLIÈRE, 1867) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): an adventive species frequently imported with fruit to Poland. Polish J Entomol 85: 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjen-2016-0010 doi: 10.1515/pjen-2016-0010
    [17] Gharsan FN (2019) A Review of the Bioactivity of Plant Products Against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J Entomol Sci 54: 256–274. https://doi.org/10.18474/JES18-82 doi: 10.18474/JES18-82
    [18] Ordax M, Piquer-Salcedo JE, Santander RD, et al. (2015) Medfly ceratitis capitata as potential vector for fire blight pathogen erwinia amylovora: Survival and transmission. PLoS One 10: e127560. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127560 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127560
    [19] Sastry KS (2013) Chapter 1—Transmission of Plant Viruses and Viroids. In: Plant Virus and Viroid Diseases in the Tropics, Springer, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6524-5
    [20] Fereres A, Raccah B (2015) Plant Virus Transmission by Insects, eLS. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0000760.pub3 doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0000760.pub3
    [21] Perilla-Henao LM, Casteel CL (2016) Vector-borne bacterial plant pathogens: Interactions with hemipteran insects and plants. Front Plant Sci 7: 1163. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01163 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01163
    [22] Jones DR (2003) Plant viruses transmitted by whiteflies. Eur J Plant Pathol 109: 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022846630513 doi: 10.1023/A:1022846630513
    [23] Ng JCK, Perry KL (2004) Transmission of plant viruses by aphid vectors. Mol Plant Pathol 5: 505–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2004.00240.x doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2004.00240.x
    [24] Sarwar M (2020) Chapter 27—Insects as transport devices of plant viruses. In: Awasthi LP (Ed.), Applied Plant Virology: Advances, Detection, and Antiviral Strategies, Academic Press, 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818654-1.00027-X
    [25] Chiquito-Almanza E, Acosta-Gallegos JA, García-Álvarez NC, et al. (2017) Simultaneous detection of both RNA and DNA viruses infecting dry bean and occurrence of mixed infections by BGYMV, BCMV and BCMNV in the Central-West Region of Mexico. Viruses 9: 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/v9040063 doi: 10.3390/v9040063
    [26] Franco JC, Zada A, Mendel Z (2009) Chapter 9—Novel Approaches for the Management of Mealybug Pests. In: Ishaaya I, Horowitz AR (Eds.), Biorational Control Arthropod Pest (Application and Resistance Management), Springer, 233–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2316-2_10
    [27] Cox JM (1989) The mealybug genus Planococcus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Bull Br Museum (Natural Hist) Entomol 58: 1–78. https://biostor.org/reference/113927
    [28] Naegele RP, Cousins P, Daane KM (2020) Identification of Vitis cultivars, rootstocks, and species expressing resistance to a Planococcus mealybug. Insects 11: 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11020086 doi: 10.3390/insects11020086
    [29] Pitino M, Hoffman MT, Zhou L, et al. (2014) The phloem-sap feeding mealybug (Ferrisia virgata) carries 'Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus' populations that do not cause disease in host plants. PLoS One 9: e85503. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085503 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085503
    [30] Prabhakar M, Prasad YG, Vennila S, et al. (2013) Hyperspectral indices for assessing damage by the solenopsis mealybug (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in cotton. Comput Electron Agric 97: 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.07.004 doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2013.07.004
    [31] Alliaume A, Reinbold C, Uzest M, et al. (2018) Mouthparts morphology of the mealybug Phenacoccus aceris. Bull Insectology 71: 1–9. http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/
    [32] Bhat AI, Hohn T, Selvarajan R (2016) Badnaviruses: The current global scenario. Viruses 8: 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/v8060177 doi: 10.3390/v8060177
    [33] Kaydan MB, Kozár F, Hodgson C (2015) A review of the phylogeny of Palaearctic mealybugs (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Pseudococcidae). Arthropod Syst Phylogeny 73: 175–195.
    [34] Coaker TH, Hill DS (1984) Agricultural insect pests of the tropics and their control. J Appl Ecol 21: 721. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/16341512
    [35] Neuenschwander P, Borgemeister C, Langewald J, et al. (2003) Biological control in IPM systems in Africa, 1–414. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851996394.0000
    [36] Mendel Z, Protasov A, Jasrotia P, et al. (2012) Sexual maturation and aging of adult male mealybug (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Bull Entomol Res 102: 385–394. https://doi: 10.1017/S0007485311000605 doi: 10.1017/S0007485311000605
    [37] Joy PP, Anjana R (2016) Insect pests of pineapple and their management. Pineapple Research Station (Karela Agicultural University), Vazhakhulam 1–3.
    [38] Kono M, Koga R, Shimada M, et al. (2008) Infection dynamics of coexisting beta- and gammaproteobacteria in the nested endosymbiotic system of mealybugs. Appl Environ Microbiol 74: 4175–4184. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00250-08 doi: 10.1128/AEM.00250-08
    [39] Byron MA, Gillett-kaufman JL (2020)Targioni Tozzetti (Insecta : Hemiptera : Pseudococcidae) 1. Biology (Basel) 1–3.
    [40] Daane KM, Cooper ML, Triapitsyn SV, et al. (2008) Vineyard managers and researchers seek sustainable solutions for mealybugs, a changing pest complex. Calif Agric 62: 167–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.3733/ca.v062n04p167 doi: 10.3733/ca.v062n04p167
    [41] Ben-Dov Y (1994) A systematic catalogue of the mealybugs of the world (Insecta: Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) with data on geographical distribution, host plants, biology and economic importance, Intercept Limited. Available from: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19941106629.
    [42] Khan M (2019) Abundance, damage severity and management of guava mealybug, ferrisia virgata ckll. SAARC J Agric 16: 73–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/sja.v16i2.40260 doi: 10.3329/sja.v16i2.40260
    [43] Afzal M, Rahman SU, Siddiqui MT (2009) Appearance and management of a new devastating pest of cotton, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley in Pakistan. 2009 Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San Antonio, Texas, 1023–1039. Available from: https://www.cotton.org/beltwide/proceedings/2005-2022/data/conferences/2009/papers/9051.pdf.
    [44] Aheer GM, Shah Z, Saeed M (2009) Seasonal history and biology of cotton mealy, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley. J Agric Res 4: 423–432.
    [45] Bhat AI, Devasahayam S, Sarma YR, et al. (2003) Association of a badnavirus in black pepper (Piper nigrum L.) transmitted by mealybug (Ferrisia virgata) in India. Curr Sci 84: 1547–1550. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24108260
    [46] Khumpumuang P, Urairong H, Yongsawatdigul J, et al. (2019) Selection of soil bacteria for controlling cassava mealybugs. Suranaree J Sci Technol 26: 166–186.
    [47] Roivainen O (1976) Transmission of cocoa viruses by mealybugs (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Agric Food Sci 48: 203–304. https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.71915 doi: 10.23986/afsci.71915
    [48] Sarpong TM, Asare-Bediako E, Acheampong L (2017) Perception of mealybug wilt effect and management among pineapple farmers in Ghana. J Agric Ext 21: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4314/jae.v21i2.1 doi: 10.4314/jae.v21i2.1
    [49] Watson GW, Kubiriba J (2005) Identification of mealybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on banana and plantain in Africa. African Entomol 13: 35–47. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC32626
    [50] Asare‐Bediako E, Nyarko J, Puije GC (2020) First report of Pineapple mealybug wilt associated virus‐2 infecting pineapple in Ghana. New Dis Reports 41: 9. https://doi.org/10.5197/j.2044-0588.2020.041.009 doi: 10.5197/j.2044-0588.2020.041.009
    [51] Celepci E, Uygur S, Bora Kaydan M, et al. (2017) Mealybug (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) species on weeds in Citrus (Rutaceae) plantations in Çukurova Plain, Turkey Çukurova Bölgesi'nde turunçgil alanlarındaki yabancıotlar üzerinde bulunan unlubit (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) türleri. Türk entomol bült 7: 15–21. https://doi: 10.16969/teb.14076 doi: 10.16969/teb.14076
    [52] Lopes FSC, de Oliveira JV, Oliveira JE de M, et al. (2019) Host plants for mealybugs (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in grapevine crops. Pesqui Agropecu Trop 49. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-40632019v4954421 doi: 10.1590/1983-40632019v4954421
    [53] Kansiime MK, Rwomushana I, Mugambi I, et al. (2020) Crop losses and economic impact associated with papaya mealybug (Paracoccus marginatus) infestation in Kenya. Int J Pest Manag 69: 1861363. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2020.1861363 doi: 10.1080/09670874.2020.1861363
    [54] Sosan MB, Ajibade RO, Udah O, et al. (2020) Preliminary survey of mealybug incidence and infestation on pawpaw (Carica papaya l.) in a rainforest ecology in Nigeria. Ife J Agric 32: 79–90. Available from: https://ija.oauife.edu.ng/index.php/ija/article/view/337.
    [55] Tachie-Menson J, Sarkodie-Addo J, Carlson A (2015) Effects of weed management on the prevalence of pink Pineapple mealybugs in Ghana. J Sci Technol 34: 17–25. https://doi.org/10.4314/just.v34i2.3 doi: 10.4314/just.v34i2.3
    [56] Wih K, Billah M (2012) Diversity of fruit flies and mealybugs in the upper west region of Ghana. J Dev Sustain Agric 7: 39–45. http://197.255.68.203/handle/123456789/1766
    [57] Muniappan R, Shepard BM, Watson GW, et al. (2008) First report of the papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), in Indonesia and India. J Agric Urban Entomol 25: 37–40. https://doi.org/10.3954/1523-5475-25.1.37 doi: 10.3954/1523-5475-25.1.37
    [58] Charles JG (1988) Economic damage and preliminary economic thresholds for mealybugs (Pseudococcus longispinus t-t.) in auckland vineyards. New Zeal J Agric Res 25: 415–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1982.10417905 doi: 10.1080/00288233.1982.10417905
    [59] Fand BB, Kumar M, Kamble AL (2014) Predicting the potential geographic distribution of cotton mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis in India based on MAXENT ecological niche Model. J Environ Biol 35: 973–982.
    [60] Nagrare VS, Kranthi S, Biradar VK, et al. (2009) Widespread infestation of the exotic mealybug species, Phenacoccus solenopsis (Tinsley) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), on cotton in India. Bull Entomol Res 99: 537–541. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485308006573 doi: 10.1017/S0007485308006573
    [61] Thennarasi A, Jeyarani S, Sathiah N (2021) Diversity of predators associated with the mealybug complex in cassava growing districts of Tamil Nadu, India. Int J Plant Soil Sci 33: 62–79. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2021/v33i2230684 doi: 10.9734/ijpss/2021/v33i2230684
    [62] Rauwane ME, Odeny DA, Millar I, et al. (2018) The early transcriptome response of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) to mealybug (Phenacoccus manihoti) feeding. PLoS One 13: e0202541. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202541 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202541
    [63] Dey KK, Green JC, Melzer M, et al. (2018) Mealybug wilt of pineapple and associated viruses. Horticulturae 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae4040052 doi: 10.3390/horticulturae4040052
    [64] Franco JC, Suma P, Da Silva EB, et al. (2004) Management strategies of mealybug pests of citrus in mediterranean countries. Phytoparasitica 32: 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02980445 doi: 10.1007/BF02980445
    [65] Woolf AB, Ben-Arie R (2011) Chapter 9—Persimmon (Diospyros kaki L.). In: Kader AA, Yahia EL (Eds.), Postharvest Biology and Technology of Tropical and Subtropical Fruits, Woodhead Publishing, 166–194e. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857092618.166
    [66] Grasswitz TR, James DG (2008) Movement of grape mealybug, Pseudococcus maritimus, on and between host plants. Entomol Exp Appl 129: 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00786.x doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00786.x
    [67] Heppner JB, Heppner JB, Capinera JL, et al. (2008) Vine Mealybug, Planococcus ficus Signoret (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). In: Capinera JL (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Entomology, Springer, 4108–4111. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6359-6_3979
    [68] Nébié K, Nacro S, Otoidobiga L, et al. (2016) Population dynamics of the mango mealybug Rastrococcus invadens Williams (Homoptera: Pseudococcidea) in western Burkina Faso. Am J Exp Agric 11: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJEA/2016/24819 doi: 10.9734/AJEA/2016/24819
    [69] Kubiriba J, Legg JP, Tushemereirwe W, et al. (2001) Vector transmission of Banana streak virus in the screenhouse in Uganda. Ann Appl Biol 139: 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2001.tb00128.x doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.2001.tb00128.x
    [70] Yu N, Luo Z, Fan H, et al. (2015) Complete genomic sequence of a Pineapple mealybug wilt-associated virus-1 from Hainan Island, China. Eur J Plant Pathol 141: 611–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-014-0545-z doi: 10.1007/s10658-014-0545-z
    [71] Kumar PKV, Reddy GVM, Seetharama HG, et al. (2016) Coffee. In: Mani M, Shivaraju C (Eds.), Mealybugs and their Management in Agricultural and Horticultural crops, Springer, 643–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2677-2_70
    [72] Rae DJ, Jones RE (1992) Influence of host nitrogen levels on development, survival, size and population dynamics of sugarcane mealybug, Saccharicoccus sacchari (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Aust J Zool 40: 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO9920327 doi: 10.1071/ZO9920327
    [73] Haviland DR, Beede RH (2012) Seasonal phenology of Ferrisia gilli (Hemiptera: pseudococcidae) in commercial pistachios. J Econ Entomol 105: 1681–1687. https://doi.org/10.1603/ec12070 doi: 10.1603/ec12070
    [74] Bertin S, Cavalieri V, Gribaudo I, et al. (2016) Transmission of Grapevine virus A and Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 1 and 3 by Heliococcus bohemicus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) nymphs from plants with mixed infections. J of Econ Entom 109: 1504–1511. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow120 doi: 10.1093/jee/tow120
    [75] Abdel-Moniem ASH, Farag NA, Abbass MH (2005) Vertical distribution of some piercing sucking insects on some roselle varieties in Egypt and the role of amino acids concentration in infestation. Arch Phytopathol Plant Prot 38: 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/03235400400008390 doi: 10.1080/03235400400008390
    [76] Myrick S, Norton GW, Selvaraj KN, et al. (2014) Economic impact of classical biological control of papaya mealybug in India. Crop Prot 56: 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2013.10.023 doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2013.10.023
    [77] Mani M, Krishnamoorthy A, Shivaraju C (2011) Biological suppression of major mealybug species on horticultural crops in India. J Hortl Sci 6: 85–100.
    [78] Ghosh AB, Ghosh SK (1985) Effect of infestation of Nipaecoccus vastator (Maskell) on host plants. Indian Agric 29: 141–147.
    [79] Roda A, Francis A, Kairo MTK, et al. (2013) Planococcus minor (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae): Bioecology, survey and mitigation strategies. In: Potential Invasive Pests Agric Crop, Wallingford UK: CABI, 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845938291.0288
    [80] Charles JG (2010) Using parasitoids to infer a native range for the obscure mealybug, Pseudococcus viburni, in South America. BioControl 56: 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-010-9322-x doi: 10.1007/s10526-010-9322-x
    [81] Sakthivel P, Karuppuchamy, Kalyanasundaram M, et al. (2012) Host plants of invasive papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus (Williams and Granara de Willink) in Tamil Nadu. Madras Agric J 99: 615–619. https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.100154 doi: 10.29321/MAJ.10.100154
    [82] Cocco A, Pacheco da Silva VC, Benelli G, et al. (2021) Sustainable management of the vine mealybug in organic vineyards. J Pest Sci 94: 153–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-020-01305-8 doi: 10.1007/s10340-020-01305-8
    [83] Selvarajan R, Balasubramanian V, Padmanaban B (2016) Mealybugs as vectors. In: Mani M, Shivaraju C (Eds.), Mealybugs and their Management in Agricultural and Horticultural Crops, Springer, 123–130.
    [84] Sether DM, Hu JS (2002) Closterovirus infection and mealybug exposure are necessary for the development of mealybug wilt of pineapple disease. Phytopathology 92: 928–935. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO.2002.92.9.928 doi: 10.1094/PHYTO.2002.92.9.928
    [85] Obok EE, Aikpokpodion PO, Ani OC, et al. (2021) Cacao swollen shoot virus detection and DNA barcoding of its vectors and putative vectors in Theobroma cacao L. by using polymerase chain reaction. Biotechnologia 102: 229–244. https://doi.org/10.5114/bta.2021.108719 doi: 10.5114/bta.2021.108719
    [86] Fuchs M, Bar-Joseph M, Candresse T, et al. (2020) ICTV virus taxonomy profile: Closteroviridae. J Gen Virol 101: 364–365. https://doi.org/10.1099/jgv.0.001397 doi: 10.1099/jgv.0.001397
    [87] Martelli GP, Abou Ghanem-Sabanadzovic N, Agranovsky AA, et al. (2012) Taxonomic revision of the family closteroviridae with special reference to the grapevine leafroll-associated members of the genus ampelovirus and the putative species unassigned to the family. J Plant Pathol 94: 7–19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45156004
    [88] Dey KK, Sugikawa J, Kerr C, et al. (2019) Air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera) plants displaying virus-like symptoms are co-infected with a novel potyvirus and a novel ampelovirus. Virus Genes 55: 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11262-018-1616-6 doi: 10.1007/s11262-018-1616-6
    [89] Martelli GP, Agranovsky AA, Bar-Joseph M, et al. (2002) The family Closteroviridae revised. Arch Virol 147: 2039–2044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007050200048 doi: 10.1007/s007050200048
    [90] Ameyaw GA, Dzahini-Obiatey HK, Domfeh O (2014) Perspectives on cocoa swollen shoot virus disease (CSSVD) management in Ghana. Crop Prot 65: 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.07.001 doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2014.07.001
    [91] Fariña AE, Rezende JAM, Wintermantel WM (2019) Expanding knowledge of the host range of tomato chlorosis virus and host plant preference of Bemisia tabaci MEAM1. Plant Dis 103: 1132–1137. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-11-18-1941-RE doi: 10.1094/PDIS-11-18-1941-RE
    [92] Flint ML (2016) PEST NOTES Statewide integrated pest management program integrated pest management for homes, gardens, and landscapes mealybugs publication 74174. Available from: https://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74174.html.
    [93] Tsai CW, Rowhani A, Golino DA, et al. (2010) Mealybug transmission of grapevine leafroll viruses: An analysis of virus-vector specificity. Phytopathology 100: 830–834. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto-100-8-0830
    [94] Sether DM, Melzer MJ, Busto J, et al. (2005) Diversity and mealybug transmissibility of ampeloviruses in pineapple. Plant Dis 89: 450–456. https://doi.org/10.1094/PD-89-0450 doi: 10.1094/PD-89-0450
    [95] Ito T, Nakaune R (2016) Molecular characterization of a novel putative ampelovirus tentatively named grapevine leafroll-associated virus 13. Arch Virol 161: 2555–2559. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-016-2914-8 doi: 10.1007/s00705-016-2914-8
    [96] Bahder BW, Poojari S, Alabi OJ, et al. (2013) Pseudococcus maritimus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) and Parthenolecanium corni (hemiptera: coccidae) are capable of transmitting grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 between vitis x labruscana and vitis vinifera. Environ Entomol 42: 1292–1298. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN13060 doi: 10.1603/EN13060
    [97] Thekke-Veetil T, Aboughanem-Sabanadzovic N, Keller KE, et al. (2013) Molecular characterization and population structure of blackberry vein banding associated virus, new ampelovirus associated with yellow vein disease. Virus Res 178: 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2013.09.039 doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2013.09.039
    [98] Larrea-Sarmiento A, Olmedo-Velarde A, Wang X, et al. (2021) A novel ampelovirus associated with mealybug wilt of pineapple (Ananas comosus). Virus Genes 57: 464–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11262-021-01852-x doi: 10.1007/s11262-021-01852-x
    [99] Wallingford AK, Fuchs MF, Martinson T, et al. (2015) Slowing the spread of grapevine leafroll-associated viruses in commercial vineyards with insecticide control of the vector, Pseudococcus maritimus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). J Insect Sci 15: 112. https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fjisesa%2Fiev094
    [100] Wistrom CM, Blaisdell GK, Wunderlich LR, et al. (2016) Ferrisia gilli (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) transmits grapevine leafroll-associated viruses. J Econ Entomol 109: 1519–1523. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow124 doi: 10.1093/jee/tow124
    [101] Maguet J Le, Beuve M, Herrbach E, et al. (2012) Transmission of six ampeloviruses and two vitiviruses to grapevine by Phenacoccus aceris. Phytopathology 102: 717–723. https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto-10-11-0289 doi: 10.1094/phyto-10-11-0289
    [102] Petersen CL, Charles JG (1997) Transmission of grapevine leafroll-associated closteroviruses by Pseudococcus longispinus and P. calceolariae. Plant Pathol 46: 509–515. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3059.1997.d01-44.x doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3059.1997.d01-44.x
    [103] Reynard JS, Schneeberger PHH, Frey JE, et al. (2015) Biological, serological, and molecular characterization of a highly divergent strain of grapevine leafroll-associated virus 4 causing grapevine leafroll disease. Phytopathology 105: 1164–1284. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-12-14-0386-R doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-12-14-0386-R
    [104] Ochoa-Martínez DL, Uriza-Ávila DE, Rojas-Martínez RI (2016) Detection of Pineapple mealybug wilt-associated virus 1 and 3 in Mexico. Revista Mexicana de Fitopatología 34: 131–141. https://doi.org/10.18781/R.MEX.FIT.1601-1 doi: 10.18781/R.MEX.FIT.1601-1
    [105] Al Rwahnih M, Rowhani A, Westrick N, et al. (2018) Discovery of viruses and virus-like pathogens in pistachio using high-throughput sequencing. Plant Dis 102: 1189–1471. https://doi.org/10.1094/pdis-12-17-1988-re doi: 10.1094/pdis-12-17-1988-re
    [106] Chouk G, Elair M, Chaabouni AC, et al. (2021) Pistacia vera L. hosts pistachio ampelovirus A in Tunisia. J Plant Pathol 103: 1335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42161-021-00905-2 doi: 10.1007/s42161-021-00905-2
    [107] Elbeaino T, Digiaro M, De Stradis A, et al. (2007) Identification of a second member of the family Closteroviridae in mosaic-diseased figs. J Plant Pathol 89: 119–124. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41998365
    [108] Yorganci S, Açıkgöz S (2019) Transmission of fig leaf mottle-associated virus 1 by Ceroplastes rusci. J Plant Pathol 101: 1199–1201. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48699659
    [109] Dolja VV, Koonin EV (2013) The closterovirus-derived gene expression and RNA interference vectors as tools for research and plant biotechnology. Front Microbiol 4: 83. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2013.00083 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00083
    [110] Komorowska B, Hasiów-Jaroszewska B, Czajka A (2020) Occurrence and detection of little cherry virus 1, little cherry virus 2, cherry green ring mottle virus, cherry necrotic rusty mottle virus, and cherry virus A in stone fruit trees in Poland. Acta Virol 64: 100–103. https://doi.org/10.4149/av_2020_112 doi: 10.4149/av_2020_112
    [111] Ferreira CHL de H, Jordão LJ, Ramos-Sobrinho R, et al. (2019) Diversification into the genus Badnavirus: Phylogeny and population genetic variability. Rev Ciência Agrícola 17: 59. https://doi.org/10.28998/rca.v17i2.6286 doi: 10.28998/rca.v17i2.6286
    [112] Kreuze JF, Perez A, Gargurevich MG, et al. (2020) Badnaviruses of sweet potato: Symptomless coinhabitants on a global scale. Front Plant Sci 11: 313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00313 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00313
    [113] Borah BK, Sharma S, Kant R, et al. (2013) Bacilliform DNA-containing plant viruses in the tropics: Commonalities within a genetically diverse group. Mol Plant Pathol 14: 759–771. https://doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12046 doi: 10.1111/mpp.12046
    [114] Quainoo AK, Wetten AC, Allainguillaume J (2008) Transmission of cocoa swollen shoot virus by seeds. J Virol Methods 150: 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2008.03.009 doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2008.03.009
    [115] Ameyaw GA (2020) Management of the cacao swollen shoot virus (CSSV) menace in Ghana: The past, present and the future. In: Topolovec-Pintarić S (Ed.), Plant Diseases—Current Threats and Management Trends, London, UK: IntechOpen., 1–3. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87009
    [116] Bömer M, Rathnayake AI, Visendi P, et al. (2018) Complete genome sequence of a new member of the genus Badnavirus, Dioscorea bacilliform RT virus 3, reveals the first evidence of recombination in yam badnaviruses. Arch Virol 163: 533–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-017-3605-9 doi: 10.1007/s00705-017-3605-9
    [117] Koch KG, Jones T-KL, Badillo-Vargas IE (2020) Chapter 26—Arthropod vectors of plant viruses. In: Awasthi LP (Ed.), Applied Plant Virology—Advances, Detection, and Antiviral Strategies, Academic Press, 349–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818654-1.00026-8
    [118] Adams MJ, Candresse T, Hammond J, et al. (2012) Family—Betaflexiviridae. In: King AMQ, Lefkowitz E, Adams MJ, et al. (Eds.), Virus Taxonomy—Ninth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, London, Elsevier Academic Press, 920–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384684-6.00078-1
    [119] Hull R (2002) Chapter 6—Genome Organization. In: Matthews REF, Hull R (Eds.), Matthews' Plant Virology, Gulf professional publishing, 171–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-361160-4.X5050-6
    [120] Mani M, Joshi S, Kalyanasundaram M, et al. (2013) A new invasive jack beardsley mealybug, Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on papaya in India. Florida Entomol 96: 242–245. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.096.0135 doi: 10.1653/024.096.0135
    [121] Andres C, Gattinger A, Dzahini-Obiatey HK, et al. (2017) Combatting cocoa swollen shoot virus disease: What do we know? Crop Prot 98: 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.03.010 doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2017.03.010
    [122] Karar H, Sayyed AH, Arif MJ, et al. (2010) Integration of cultural and mechanical practices for management of the mango mealybug Drosicha mangiferae. Phytoparasitica 38: 223–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12600-010-0094-8 doi: 10.1007/s12600-010-0094-8
    [123] Haviland DR, Bentley WJ, Daane KM (2005) Hot-water treatments for control of Planococcus ficus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) on dormant grape cuttings. J Econ Entomol 98: 1109–1115. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-98.4.1109 doi: 10.1603/0022-0493-98.4.1109
    [124] Carabalí-Banguero DJ, Wyckhuys KAG, Montoya-Lerma J, et al. (2013) Do additional sugar sources affect the degree of attendance of Dysmicoccus brevipes by the fire ant Solenopsis geminata? Entomol Exp Appl 148: 65–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eea.12076 doi: 10.1111/eea.12076
    [125] Vincent C, Weintraub P, Hallman G (2009) Chapter 200—Physical control of insect pests. In: Resh VH, Cardé RT (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Insects (Second Edition), Academic press, 794–798. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374144-8.00209-5
    [126] Franco JC, Silva EB, Cortegano E, et al. (2008) Kairomonal response of the parasitoid Anagyrus spec. nov. near pseudococci to the sex pheromone of the vine mealybug. Entomol Exp Appl 126: 122–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2007.00643.x doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2007.00643.x
    [127] Kaur Gill H, Gaurav G, Gillett-Kaufman JL (2019) Citrus mealybug Planococcus citri (Risso) (Insecta: Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). University of Florida. Available from: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/IN947.
    [128] Hartley DE (1992) 12—Poinsettias. In: Larson RA (Ed.), Introduction to Floriculture (Second Edition), Academic Press, 305–331.
    [129] Le Vieux PD, Malan AP (2013) An overview of the vine mealybug (Planococcus ficus) in South African vineyards and the use of entomopathogenic nematodes as potential biocontrol agent. South African J Enol Vitic 34: 108–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.21548/34-1-1086 doi: 10.21548/34-1-1086
    [130] Tohamy TH, El-Raheem AAA, El-Rawy AM (2008) Role of the cultural practices and natural enemies for suppressing infestation of the pink sugarcane mealybug, Saccharicoccus sacchari (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in sugarcane fields at Minia Governorate, Middle Egypt. Egypt J Biol Pest Control 18: 177–188. Available from: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20093037731.
    [131] Mani M, Shivaraju C (2016) Mealybugs and their management in agricultural and horticultural crops, Springer, 1–655.
    [132] Cadée N, Van Alphen JJM (1997) Host selection and sex allocation in Leptomastidea abnormis, a parasitoid of the citrus mealybug Planococcus citri. Entomol Exp Appl 83: 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.1997.00182.x doi: 10.1046/j.1570-7458.1997.00182.x
    [133] Giordanengo P, Nénon JP (1990) Melanization and encapsulation of eggs and larvae of Epidinocarsis lopezi by its host Phenacoccus manihoti; effects of superparasitism and egg laying patterns. Entomol Exp Appl 56: 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1990.tb01393.x doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.1990.tb01393.x
    [134] Pijls JWAM, Poleij LM, Van Alphen JJM, et al. (1996) Interspecific interference between Apoanagyrus lopezi and A. diversicornis, parasitoids of the cassava mealybug Phenacoccus manihoti. Entomol Exp Appl 78: 221–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1996.tb00785.x doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.1996.tb00785.x
    [135] Lapointe SL (2015) A tribute to Dr. Anthony C. Bellotti and his contributions to Cassava entomology. Fla Entomol 98: 810–814. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.098.0267 doi: 10.1653/024.098.0267
    [136] Walton VM, Pringle KL (2017) A survey of mealybugs and associated natural enemies in vineyards in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. South African J Enol Vitic 25: 23–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.21548/25-1-2134 doi: 10.21548/25-1-2134
    [137] Çalışkan AF, Ulusoy MR (2018) Distribution, host plants, parasitoids, and predators of cotton mealybug. Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Pseudococcidae) from Eastern Mediterrenean region, 4th International Agriculture Congress, Muğla, 05–08.
    [138] Chen HY, Li HL, Pang H, et al. (2021) Investigating the parasitoid community associated with the invasive mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis in Southern China. Insects 12: 290. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040290 doi: 10.3390/insects12040290
    [139] Zart M, De MacEdo MF, Rando JSS, et al. (2021) Performance of entomopathogenic nematodes on the mealybug, Dysmicoccus brevipes (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) and the compatibility of control agents with nematodes. J Nematol 53: 2021–2041. https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2021-020 doi: 10.21307/jofnem-2021-020
    [140] Chellappan M (2019) Evaluation of entomopathogenic fungus for the management of pink mealybug, Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on pineapple in Kerala. J Entomol Zool Stud 7: 1215–1222.
    [141] Bigger M (1981) The relative abundance of the mealybug vectors (Hemiptera: Coccidae and Pseudococcidae) of Cocoa swollen shoot disease in Ghana. Bull Entomol Res 71: 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485300008464 doi: 10.1017/S0007485300008464
    [142] Fuenmayor Y, Portillo E, Bastidas B, et al. (2021) Infection parameters of Heterorhabditis amazonensis (Nematoda: Heterorhabditidae) in different stages of Hibiscus pink mealybug. J Nematol 52: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2020-077 doi: 10.21307/jofnem-2020-077
    [143] Katiyar RL, Kumar V, Manjunath D, et al. (2000) Biology of Anagyrus kamali (Moursi) (Hymenoptera : Encyrtidae)—A parasitoid of the mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green), with a note on its incidence. Int J Ind Entomol 1: 143–148.
    [144] Singh KD, Mobolade AJ, Bharali R, et al. (2021) Main plant volatiles as stored grain pest management approach: A review. J Agric Food Res 4: 100127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100127 doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100127
    [145] Taylor A, Birkett JW (2020) Pesticides in cannabis: A review of analytical and toxicological considerations. Drug Test Anal 12: 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.2747 doi: 10.1002/dta.2747
    [146] Farahy O, Laghfiri M, Bourioug M, et al. (2021) Overview of pesticide use in Moroccan apple orchards and its effects on the environment. Curr Opin Environ Sci Heal 19: 100223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2020.10.011 doi: 10.1016/j.coesh.2020.10.011
    [147] Kaur R, Mavi GK, Raghav S, et al. (2019) Pesticides classification and its impact on environment. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 8: 1889–1897. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.803.224 doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2019.803.224
    [148] Babar M, Afzal S, Sikandar Z, et al. (2018) Efficacy of different insecticides under laboratory conditions against Drosicha mangiferae Green (Homoptera : Margarodidae) collected from citrus orchards of Sargodha, Pakistan. Pakistan J Entomol Zool Stud 6: 2855–2858.
    [149] Mansour R, Belzunces LP, Suma P, et al. (2018) Vine and citrus mealybug pest control based on synthetic chemicals. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 38: 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0513-7 doi: 10.1007/s13593-018-0513-7
    [150] Edde PA (2022) 4—Arthropod pests of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). In: Field Crop Arthropod Pests of Economic Importance, Academic Press, 208–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818621-3.00003-3
    [151] Akhter A, Hage-Ahmed K, Soja G, et al. (2016) Potential of Fusarium wilt-inducing chlamydospores, in vitro behaviour in root exudates and physiology of tomato in biochar and compost amended soil. Plant Soil 406: 425–440. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11104-016-2948-4
    [152] Sequeira RV, Khan M, Reid DJ (2020) Chemical control of the mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Australian cotton–glasshouse assessments of insecticide efficacy. Austral Entomol 59: 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/aen.12446 doi: 10.1111/aen.12446
    [153] Waiganjo MM, Waturu CN, Mureithi JM (2011) Use of entomopathogenic Fungi and neem bio-pesticides for Brassica pests control and conservation of their natural enemies. East Afr Agric For J 77: 1&2.
    [154] Gahukar RT (2014) Factors affecting content and bioefficacy of neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) phytochemicals used in agricultural pest control: A review. Crop Prot 62: 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.04.014 doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2014.04.014
    [155] Pascoli M, de Albuquerque FP, Calzavara AK, et al. (2020) The potential of nanobiopesticide based on zein nanoparticles and neem oil for enhanced control of agricultural pests. J Pest Sci 93: 793–806. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10340-020-01194-x
    [156] Ahmed S, Grainge M (1986) Potential of the neem tree (Azadirachta indica) for pest control and rural development. Econ Bot 40: 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02859144 doi: 10.1007/BF02859144
    [157] Abul Monjur Khan M (2016) Efficacy of insect growth regulator Buprofezin against Papaya mealybug. J Entomol Zool Stud 4: 730–733.
    [158] Ujváry I (2010) Chapter 3—Pest control agents from natural products. In: Krieger R (Ed.), Hayes' Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology (Third Edition), Academic press, 119–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374367-1.00003-3
    [159] ShouHorng H, ChingYi L (2014) Distribution and control of pink pineapple mealybug and survey of insect pests on pineapple. J Taiwan Agric Res 63: 68–76.
    [160] Rai BK, Sinha AK (1980) Pineapple: Chemical control of mealybug and associated ants in Guyana. J Econ Entomol 73: 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/73.1.41 doi: 10.1093/jee/73.1.41
    [161] Hussain M, Noureen N, Fatima S, et al. (2016) Cotton mealybug management: A Review. Middle-East J Sci Res 24: 2424–2430. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2016.24.08.101221 doi: 10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2016.24.08.101221
    [162] Atu UG, Okeke JE (2009) Effect of insecticide application on cassava yield in control of cassava mealybug (Phenacoccus Manlhotl). Trop Pest Manag 27: 434–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670878109413818 doi: 10.1080/09670878109413818
    [163] Hanna AD, Heatherington W, Judenko E (1952) Control of the mealybug vectors of the swollen shoot virus by a systemic insecticide. Nature 169: 334–335. https://doi.org/10.1038/169334a0 doi: 10.1038/169334a0
    [164] Islam M, Ahmad M, Islam K, et al. (2006) Chemical control of citrus mealybug planococcus Citri risso (Pseudococcidae: Hemiptera) and the toxicological effects of insecticides on its predators Menochilussexmaculatus F. and Micraspis discolor F. (Coccinellidae: Coleoptera). J Sci Found 4: 27–30.
    [165] Ganjisaffar F, Andreason SA, Perring TM (2019) Lethal and sub-lethal effects of insecticides on the pink hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Insects 10: 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10010031 doi: 10.3390/insects10010031

  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Florence Jaguga, Sarah Kanana Kiburi, Eunice Temet, Julius Barasa, Serah Karanja, Lizz Kinyua, Edith Kamaru Kwobah, Judith I Tsui, A systematic review of substance use and substance use disorder research in Kenya, 2022, 17, 1932-6203, e0269340, 10.1371/journal.pone.0269340
    2. Kimutai Katwa, Irene Chesire, Benson Gakinya, Nicodemus Kuboi, Maloosoy Katwa, Psychotic and Substance Use Disorders Among Relatives of Patients with Bipolar Disorder at a Hospital in Kenya, 2024, 3, 2789-620X, 113, 10.56893/ajhes2024v03i02.07
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索
AIMS Agriculture and Food
1.9 3.7

Metrics

Article views(3944) PDF downloads(490) Cited by(10)

Preview PDF
Download XML
Export Citation
Article outline
Abstract
   Introduction
   Methodology
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion and recommendations
References

Figures and Tables

Figures(1)  /  Tables(8)

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

Copyright © AIMS Press

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog