Category Archives: Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Entomology: Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Coleoptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Pagiocerus frontalis (Fabricius): A Scolytid Weevil

March 16, 2015 Jason Leathers

California Pest Rating for

Pagiocerus frontalis (Fabricius): A Scolytid Weevil

Coleoptera: Cucurlionidae

Pest Rating: B

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

On May 21, 2014 Dr. Andrew Cline identified a beetle collected in Escondido, San Diego County, as Pagiocerus frontalis (PDR SJ0P06003026). This beetle was also reported from San Diego County in 2010. The beetle presently has a temporary rating of Q, so Dr. Kevin Hoffman recommended a pest rating proposal to determine future direction.

History & Status:

Background: Pagiocerus frontalis feeds and reproduces on the seeds of fallen avocado fruit and both fresh and dry corn. The species is considered a major pest of stored corn in the highlands of the Andes^1,2. Beetles infest corn cobs in the field before harvest and continue feeding in storage, destroying the corn within several months¹. The beetles have also been found on several other plants including coffee; however, a laboratory experiment found that these other plants were not suitable hosts for reproduction and development¹. Pagiocerus frontalis is not known to have ever been intercepted, but could presumably spread long distances when infested fresh or dry corn or ripe, damaged avocados are moved.

Worldwide Distribution: Pagiocerus frontalis is a Neotropical beetle whose range extends from South America, through Central America and Mexico, into the southeastern United States.

Official Control: Pagiocerus frontalis is listed as a quarantine pest by Japan⁴ and New Zealand⁵.

California Distribution: In California Pagiocerus frontalis has only been found in San Diego County.

California Interceptions: Pagiocerus frontalis has never been intercepted in any regulatory situations in California.

The risk Pagiocerus frontalis would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Pagiocerus frontalis has a widespread distribution across a wide variety of climates from the Andes in South America to North Carolina. It can be expected to establish wherever it can find suitable host material in California. The beetle receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California. Score:

– Low (1) Not likely to establish in California; or likely to establish in very limited areas.
– Medium (2) may be able to establish in a larger but limited part of California.
– High (3) likely to establish a widespread distribution in California.

2) Known Pest Host Range: Pagiocerus frontalis is only known to be able to complete its reproductive cycle on corn and the seeds of fallen avocados. It receives a Low (1) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Pagiocerus frontalis has high reproductive potential; females lay many eggs and it can complete its entire life cycle in 3 to 4 weeks¹. The beetles may theoretically disperse long distances through the movement of infested corn or inside the seeds of ripe, damaged avocados. The beetle receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: The value of corn produced in California was approximately $812.1 million in 2012. This includes $234.7 for grain, $454.4 for silage, and $123 million for sweet. Pagiocerus frontalis might increase production costs in these crops, especially organic sweet corn. The beetle is considered a quarantine pest by some nations. The beetle therefore has the potential to disrupt markets by contaminating corn or as a hitchhiker on other commodities. Pagiocerus frontalis receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below. Score:

A. The pest could lower crop yield.
B. The pest could lower crop value (includes increasing crop production costs).
C. The pest could trigger the loss of markets (includes quarantines).
D. The pest could negatively change normal cultural practices.
E. The pest can vector, or is vectored, by another pestiferous organism.
F. The organism is injurious or poisonous to agriculturally important animals.
G. The organism can interfere with the delivery or supply of water for agricultural uses.

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Pagiocerus frontalis is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. The beetle is not likely to directly affect threatened or endangered species or disrupt critical habitats. Large populations of the beetle might trigger new chemical treatments in corn when the crop is in the field or storage. Pagiocerus frontalis is not expected to significantly impact cultural practices, home/urban gardening, or ornamental plantings. The beetle receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

A. The pest could have a significant environmental impact such as lowering biodiversity, disrupting natural communities, or changing ecosystem processes.
B. The pest could directly affect threatened or endangered species.
C. The pest could impact threatened or endangered species by disrupting critical habitats.
D. The pest could trigger additional official or private treatment programs.
E. The pest significantly impacts cultural practices, home/urban gardening or ornamental plantings.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Pagiocerus frontalis: Medium(11)

Add up the total score and include it here.

– Low = 5-8 points
– Medium = 9-12 points
– High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: In California, Pagiocerus frontalis is only known to be established in San Diego County. The beetle receives a Low (-1) in this category.

Evaluate the known distribution in California. Only official records identified by a taxonomic expert and supported by voucher specimens deposited in natural history collections should be considered. Pest incursions that have been eradicated, are under eradication, or have been delimited with no further detections should not be included.

– Not established (0) Pest never detected in California, or known only from incursions.
– Low (-1) Pest has a localized distribution in California, or is established in one suitable climate/host area (region).
– Medium (-2) Pest is widespread in California but not fully established in the endangered area, or pest established in two contiguous suitable climate/host areas.
– High (-3) Pest has fully established in the endangered area, or pest is reported in more than two contiguous or non-contiguous suitable climate/host areas.

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (10)

Uncertainty:

There are a wide variety of pests that feed on both fresh and dry corn. It is possible that existing treatments, cultural practices, and modified genes will preclude any economic damage from this pest in California. Pagiocerus frontalis also feeds on the seed of fallen avocado. These avocados are not likely to be distributed commercially; nevertheless, the presence of this beetle might disrupt markets.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Pagiocerus frontalis is only known from San Diego County and has the potential to have limited economic and environmental impacts. A “B” rating is justified.

References:

¹ Eidt-Wendt, J. and F.A. Schulz. Studies on the biology and ecology of Pagiocerus frontalis (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infesting stored maize in Ecuador. Technical University Berlin, Department of Phytomedicine, Berlin, FRG. http://spiru.cgahr.ksu.edu/proj/iwcspp/pdf2/5/61.pdf

² Gianoli, E., I. Ramos, A. Alfaro-Tapia, Y. Valdéz, E.R. Echegaray, and E. Yábar. 2006. Benefits of a maize-bean-weeds mixed cropping system in Urubamba Valley, Peruvian Andes. International Journal of Pest Management. 52(4):283-289. http://www2.udec.cl/~egianoli/06gianintjpestman.pdf

⁴https://www.ippc.int/sites/default/files/documents/20130423/1309849796_qp_list_2013042321%3A18En.pdf

⁵ http://piorin.gov.pl/cms/upload/seed.pdf

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov

Pest Rating: B

Posted by ls

Diptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Horidiplosis ficifolii Harris: An Ornamental Fig Pest

March 16, 2015 Jason Leathers

California Pest Rating for

Horidiplosis ficifolii: an ornamental fig pest — *Horidiplosis ficifolii*: an Ornamental Fig Pest
Image Citation: Jakub Beránek

Horidiplosis ficifolii Harris: An Ornamental Fig Pest

Diptera: Cecidomyiidae

Pest Rating: B

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

On November 14, 2014, Dr. Martin Hauser identified Horidiplosis ficifolii on ornamental shrubs in San Diego (PDR 370P06228129). This is the first time this pest has been found in California. A pest rating proposal is needed.

History & Status:

Background: Horidiplosis ficifolii is a gall midge that forms galls on the leaves of ornamental Ficus spp¹. Known hosts include Ficus microcarpa^1,2, F. retusa², F. nitida², and F. panda². The gall midge may spread long distances when infested host plants are moved.

Worldwide Distribution: Horidiplosis ficifolii is native to China, Taiwan, and Japan. From there it has spread to Florida and greenhouses in Europe.

Official Control: Horidiplosis ficifolii is not known to be under official control in any other states or nations³.

California Distribution: Horidiplosis ficifolii has only been found in San Diego.

California Interceptions: Horidiplosis ficifolii has never been intercepted in regulatory situations in California.

The risk Horidiplosis ficifolii would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Ficus plants are commonly grown in California and Horidiplosis ficifolii is likely to establish where they are grown. The gall midge receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California. Score:

2) Known Pest Host Range: Horidiplosis ficifolii is only known to feed on four species of plants in the genus Ficus. It receives a Low (1) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Gall midges can produce many offspring and may move long distances through commerce in infested host plants. They may also be dispersed locally by wind. Horidiplosis ficifolii receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:

– Low (1) does not have high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– Medium (2) has either high reproductive or dispersal potential.
– High (3) has both high reproduction and dispersal potential.

4) Economic Impact: Horidiplosis ficifolii may increase the production cost of Ficus spp. nursery stock and lower the value of infested plants. It is not expected to lower crop yield, trigger lost markets, change cultural practices, vector pestiferous organisms, injure animals, or interfere with water supplies. The gall midge receives a Low (1) in this category.

Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below. Score:

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Horidiplosis ficifolii is not expected to lower biodiversity, disrupt natural communities, or change ecosystem processes. The gall midge is not expected to affect threatened or endangered species or disrupt critical habitats. The gall midge may trigger new treatment programs in the nursery industry and by residents who find infested plants unsightly. Ficus spp. are commonly grown as ornamentals in California and may be significantly affected by this insect. Horidiplosis ficifolii receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Horidiplosis ficifolii: Medium (11)

Add up the total score and include it here.

– Low = 5-8 points
– Medium = 9-12 points
– High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Horidiplosis ficifolii is only known from an incursion into San Diego. It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: Medium (11)

Uncertainty:

There have been no formal surveys for Horidiplosis ficifolii in California. It is possible that the gall midge may be more widespread. However, the species is relatively new to science, it was just described in 2003. It is possible that it may emerge as a more serious pest as it expands its range.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Due to its narrow host range the entry of Horidiplosis ficifolii is expected to have limited economic consequences. However, it may have significant environmental impacts by triggering new chemical treatments in the nursery industry and by residents who find infested ornamental plants unsightly. A “B” rating is justified.

References:

¹Steck, Gary J. and Scott Krueger. An Ornamental Fig Pest, Horidiplosis ficifolii Harris (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), Genus and Species New to Florida and North America. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Plant-Industry/Plant-Industry-Publications/Pest-Alerts/Pest-Alerts-An-Ornamental-Fig-Pest-Horidiplosis-Ficifolii-Harris-Diptera-Cecidomyiidae

²Beránek, Jakub and Ivana Šafránková. 2010. First record of Horidiplosis ficifolii Harris 2003 (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in the Czech Republic. Plant Protect. Sci. 46(4): 185-187. http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/31854.pdf

³USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/

Responsible Party:

Jason Leathers, 1220 ‘N’ Street, Room 221, Sacramento CA 95814, (916) 654-1211, plant.health[@]cdfa.ca.gov

Pest Rating: B

Posted by ls

Hymenoptera, Insects, Mites & Earthworms

Pheidole megacephala (Bigheaded Ant)

March 16, 2015 Jason Leathers

California Pest Rating for

Pheidole megacephala (Bigheaded Ant)

Hymenoptera: Formicidae

Pest Rating: A

PEST RATING PROFILE

Initiating Event:

On April 18, 2014, Dr. Rosser Garrison identified samples of ants collected at a residence in Costa Mesa, CA as Pheidole megacephala, bigheaded ant. The species is currently Q-rated, so a pest rating proposal is needed to determine future direction.

History & Status:

Background: Pheidole megacephala is a “tramp ant” invasive species that has spread around much of the tropical, subtropical, and temperate world where it is typically associated with the disturbed environments created by human habitations. Bigheaded ant primarily nests in soil and is often found nesting in disturbed soil, lawns, flowerbeds, under objects like bricks or cement slabs, flower pots, around trees and water pipes, and along the bases of structures and walkways². Unlike other ants in the genus Pheidole, bigheaded ant is a major nuisance pest which frequently invades homes in search of food. Like subterranean termites, the ants sometimes build covered foraging tubes on building foundations or shrubs². Bigheaded ants are omnivorous. Outdoors, they typically feed on honeydew, insects, seeds, and small vertebrates such as bird hatchlings. Indoors they are often found feeding on meat, pet food, oily foods such as peanut butter, and grease on stoves, counters, walls, or dish cloths³. Bigheaded ant invades homes so frequently in southern Florida that it is now considered to be the most common ant that triggers residents to call pest control companies². Colonies of bigheaded ant have multiple queens and often form “supercolonies” where groups of queens and workers move off to expand the colony². These large interconnected colonies make control of the ants difficult, as colonies can extend between and across properties. Other ant species are excluded from these areas. The most likely pathway for the long distance spread of bigheaded ant is when colonies in potted plants are moved^1,2.

Worldwide Distribution: Pheidole megacephala is believed to be native to Africa¹. From there it has spread to parts of Asia, Oceania, Central America, South America, Europe, Hawaii, and the Caribbean¹. In the continental United States, bigheaded ant has been present in Florida since before 1933².

Official Control: Pheidole megacephala is listed as a quarantine pest by French Polynesia, Japan, and the Republic of Korea¹⁴.

California Distribution: In April 2014, Pheidole megacephala was found at a residential property in Costa Mesa. CDFA conducted a visual and SPAM-bait survey of a 5-mile radius around this site. At this time the ants were found to be confined within a 400m radius within the single residential neighborhood and an adjacent golf course. As of December, 2014, bigheaded ants have not been found in the environment of California outside of this neighborhood.

California Interceptions: Pheidole megacephala is commonly intercepted by CDFA. There have been 1,514 interceptions since January 1, 2000.

The risk Pheidole megacephala (bigheaded ant) would pose to California is evaluated below.

Consequences of Introduction:

1) Climate/Host Interaction: Pheidole megacephala tends to favor cool areas with high humidity³. The ants are likely to do well in coastal California and in irrigated areas elsewhere. Bigheaded ant receives a Medium (2) in this category.

Evaluate if the pest would have suitable hosts and climate to establish in California. Score:

2) Known Pest Host Range: Pheidole megacephala is omnivorous and receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the host range of the pest. Score:

– Low (1) has a very limited host range.
– Medium (2) has a moderate host range.
– High (3) has a wide host range.

3) Pest Dispersal Potential: Pheidole megacephala reproduces rapidly. Colonies have multiple queens and each queen lays up to 292 eggs each month². Bigheaded ant spreads relatively slowly naturally, but colonies in potted plants can be transported long distances rapidly. Bigheaded ant receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the natural and artificial dispersal potential of the pest. Score:

4) Economic Impact: Pheidole megacephala is likely to injure agriculturally important animals when it tends honeydew producing insects in agricultural systems. The ants are known to tend economically important insects such as Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) (Diaphorina citri)⁹, green scale (Coccus viridis)⁴, grey pineapple mealybug (Dysmicoccus neobrevipes), and many others. While the ants are tending honeydew producers they consume predatory insects such as lady bugs and parasitic wasps including Tamarixia radiata⁹. This can disrupt the biological control component of existing IPM programs⁴ and allow honeydew producing pest insects to flourish, increasing crop damage and production costs. In southern Florida bigheaded ants are the primary ants that tend ACP⁹. In experiments they have been shown to greatly reduce the success of biological control with Tamarixia radiata⁹. For example, on Murraya paniculata bigheaded ants reduced the parasitism of ACP from 20.36% to 0.39%⁹. Furthermore, in their native range in Africa, bigheaded ants are known to use detritus and soil to build protective shelters over the psyllid Diaphorina enderleini¹⁰. These structures offer psyllids protection from environmental threats such as predators and contact insecticides. Bigheaded ants are listed as a quarantine pest by Japan, Korea, and French Polynesia¹⁴. The presence of these ants as hitchhikers on a wide variety of commodities may trigger disruptions to California exports. Bigheaded ants have also been documented chewing into drip irrigation systems, which may interfere with the delivery of water for agricultural uses⁵. Pheidole megacephala receives a High(3) in this category.

There may also be some positive economic impact from the entry of bigheaded ant to California. Bigheaded ants have been shown to help control pest insects in some circumstances by consuming damaging pest insects that do not produce honeydew and replacing them with less damaging honeydew-producing insects⁷. They also consume termites⁸.

Evaluate the economic impact of the pest to California using the criteria below. Score:

– Low (1) causes 0 or 1 of these impacts.
– Medium (2) causes 2 of these impacts.
– High (3) causes 3 or more of these impacts.

5) Environmental Impact: Pheidole megacephala has the potential to cause massive, long-term alterations to natural communities and large-scale changes ecosystem processes. Although they are limited by the absence of water in dry areas, they can be expected to gradually invade most ecosystems and severely affect all native invertebrates. For example, they are well known to displace native ant fauna¹³. In an Australian rainforest, all insect larvae were found be absent from areas colonized by bigheaded ant¹². Bigheaded ants can be expected to consume any threatened or endangered invertebrates that they encounter. The ants are also likely to facilitate the spread of noxious weeds through the environment by feeding on beneficial insects introduced for biological control⁶. Furthermore, bigheaded ant is also likely to trigger new treatments by residents as it invades homes in search of food and water. Many residents of Florida contact pest control companies to arrange chemical treatments due to infestations of homes by these ants². Bigheaded ant receives a High (3) in this category.

Evaluate the environmental impact of the pest on California using the criteria below.

Score the pest for Environmental Impact. Score:

– Low (1) causes none of the above to occur.
– Medium (2) causes one of the above to occur.
– High (3) causes two or more of the above to occur.

Consequences of Introduction to California for Pheidole megacephala (bigheaded ant): High (14)

Add up the total score and include it here.

– Low = 5-8 points
– Medium = 9-12 points
– High = 13-15 points

6) Post Entry Distribution and Survey Information: Pheidole megacephala is only known from a single incursion into a neighborhood in Costa Mesa. It receives a Not established (0) in this category.

Final Score:

The final score is the consequences of introduction score minus the post entry distribution and survey information score: High (14)

Uncertainty:

There is much uncertainty with the introduction of exotic ants to California. New species of ants may play a role in slow, long-term changes to our ecosystems that are difficult to observe on a short time scale. Alternatively, there are other species of ants already present in California and new species may have lesser effects. Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) occupies a similar niche to bigheaded ant and is already widely distributed in the state. It is possible that argentine ant may be able to outcompete bigheaded ant under some environmental conditions.

Bigheaded ant has not been observed building dirt shelters to protect ACP like it does closely related psyllids in its native range. However, most places where both ACP and bigheaded ant occur have frequent rainfall that may destroy any shelters. It is possible that the drier climate of California may be more favorable for this shelter-building behavior. If this occurs, it may complicate control of ACP by contact insecticides. If bigheaded ant were to both disrupt biological control of ACP by Tamarixia radiata and build shelters that protect ACP from contact insecticides, this may trigger additional management changes to organic citrus production in California.

Conclusion and Rating Justification:

Pheidole megacephala is likely to have significant economic impacts in California by disrupting biological control components of IPM programs and disrupting exports. This can be expected to increase production costs by triggering additional pest management. Bigheaded ant can also be expected to have significant long-term environmental impacts on the state and is under consideration for official control. An “A”-rating is justified.

References:

¹CABI Invasive Species Compendium. http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/40133

²Warner, John and Rudolph H. Scheffrahn. 2013. Featured creatures: big headed ant. http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/urban/ants/bigheaded_ant.htm

³Northern Territory Government. Big headed (or coastal brown) ant fact sheet. http://www.lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/11268/BigHAnt_Fact-Sheet.pdf

⁴Reimer, Neil J., Mei-li Cope, and George Yasuda. 1993. Interference of Pheidole megacephala (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) with biological control of Coccus viridis (Homoptera: Coccidae) in coffee. Environmental Entomology 22(2): 483-488. http://esa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?option1=tka&value1=Interference+of+Pheidole+megacephala&operator9=AND&option9=publications&value9=esa&sortDescending=true&sortField=default&pageSize=10&index=1

⁵Chang, Vincent C.S., Asher K. Ota, and Deborra Sanders. 1980. Parallel ridge barrier to control ant damage to orifices of drip irrigation tubes. Journal of Economic Entomology 73: 403-406. http://esa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?option1=tka&value1=Parallel+ridge+barrier+to+control&operator9=AND&option9=publications&value9=esa&sortDescending=true&sortField=default&pageSize=10&index=1

⁶Reimer, N.J. 1988. Predation on Liothrips urichi Karny (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae): A case of biotic interference. Environmental Entomology 17(1): 132-134. http://esa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?option1=tka&value1=Predation+on+Liothrips+urichi&operator9=AND&option9=publications&value9=esa&sortDescending=true&sortField=default&pageSize=10&index=1

⁷Jones, Vincent P., Daphne M. Westcott, Naomi N. Finson, and Roy K. Nishimoto. 2001. Relationship between community structure and southern green stink bug (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) damage in macadamia nuts. Environmental Entomology 30(6): 1028-1035. http://esa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?option1=tka&value1=Relationship+between+community+structure&operator9=AND&option9=publications&value9=esa&sortDescending=true&sortField=default&pageSize=10&index=4

⁸Cornelius, Mary L. and J.Kenneth Grace. 1996. Effect of two ant species (Hymeoptera: Formicidae) on the foraging and survival of the Formosan subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Environmental Entomology 25(1): 85-89. http://esa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?option1=tka&value1=Effect+of+two+ant+species&operator9=AND&option9=publications&value9=esa&sortDescending=true&sortField=default&pageSize=10&index=4

⁹Navarrete, Bernardo, Heather McAuslane , Mark Deyrup and Jorge E. Peña. 2013. Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Associated with Diaphorina citri (Hemiptera: Liviidae) and their Role in its Biological Control. Florida Entomologist, 96(2):590-597. http://swfrec.ifas.ufl.edu/hlb/database/pdf/21_Navarrete_13.pdf

¹⁰Alene, Desiree Chantal, Champlain Djieto-Lordon, and Daniel Burckhardt. 2011. Unusual behavior—unusual morphology: mutualistic relationships between ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Diaphorina enderleini (Hemiptera: Psylloidea), associated with Vernonia amygdalina (Asteraceae). African Invertebrates 52(2):353-361. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.5733/afin.052.0210?journalCode=afin

¹¹Jahn, Gary C. and John W. Beardsley. 1996. Effects of Pheidole megacephala (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on survival and dispersal of Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 89(5): 1124-1129. http://esa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?option1=tka&value1=Effects+of+Pheidole+megacephala+%28+Hymenoptera%3a+Formicidae+%29+on+survival+and+dispersal+of+Dysmicoccus+neobrevipes&operator9=AND&option9=publications&value9=esa&sortDescending=true&sortField=default&pageSize=10&index=1

¹²Hoffmann, Benjamin D., Alan N. Andersen, and Greg J.E. Hill. 1999. Impact of an introduced ant on native rainforest invertebrates: Pheidole megacephala in monsoonal Australia. Oecologia 120: 595-604. http://www.issg.org/database/species/reference_files/phemeg/hoffmann1999.pdf

¹³Vanderwoude, C., L.A. Lobry De Bruyn, and A.P.N. House. 2001. Response of an open-forest ant community to invasion by the introduced ant, Pheidole megacephala. Austral Ecology 25(3): 253-259. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1442-9993.2000.01021.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

¹⁴USDA Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance & Tracking System (PCIT) Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD). https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/pcit/