Further Physical &amp; Chemical Control Tools Versus Juvenile Spittlebugs
Creators: name: D'Accolti Angela
name: Picciotti Ugo
name: Salerno Martina
name: Schiavarelli Angela
name: Gammino Riccardo Pio
name: Francesco, Diana
name: Convertini Stefano
name: Maffioli Guido
name: Facchinetti Davide
name: Porcelli Francesco
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2017
Subjects: xylem-sap feeders, xylematic bacteria, alien invasive pest, plant disease, Mediterranean, CoDiRO

description: <em>Philaenus spumarius</em> Linnaeus, 1758, (Hemiptera Aphrophoridae) AKA the Meadow Spittlebug belongs to a Taxon whose juvenile live protected into a foamy mass they inflate starting from external glandular secretions and anal excretions. Several species share the behaviour and the common name and are capable of infesting uncultured fields building up an exceedingly high population that are difficult to manage also due to their protected lifestyle. <em>P. spumarius</em> control was almost out of the question until the demonstration of its ability to transmit the <em>Xylella fastidiosa pauca</em> strain responsible for the Apulian Olive Quick Decline Syndrome (OQDS) epidemics. Moreover, being the percentage of Ps over the total spittlebug number almost unpredictable and existing any selective control means, we are somehow forced to control the entire population either as juveniles or adults. Over and above that, control of juveniles is strongly preferable because they have a negligible ability to transmit Xf. Physical (mechanical) vector control has already been suggested targeting nymph 4 &amp; 5 and it revealed to be feasible and effective but elicited the concern of organic management stakeholder because of the possible disturbance to soil integrity. Given the premise, we consider here a combination of physical action (hot 60-90°CT steam) and a biocontrol insecticide (ABP-617, tradename Flipper by AlphaBio Control Ltd.) of vegetal origin based on carboxylic acids (C14 – C20) potassium salts. Steam originated from an MM STEAM 100-12V weed control machine equipped with a hand shielded steam lance and the insecticide was poured into the water tank at 0.1 <strong>%</strong> v/v (498 mg of a.s./l of water). Trials were conducted on May 8<sup>th</sup>, 2017 near Somaglia (LO) in uncultivated area and we used a randomised block scheme with a 0.25-m<sup>2</sup>-wide test and three replicates, each 0.25-m<sup>2</sup>-wide. To avoid bias effects from adjacent untreated areas we treated not only the plots but a 50-cm large frame around each block of four 0.25 m<sup>2</sup> replicates, a total surface of 4 m<sup>2</sup> for each treatment, block + frame. During the action, the lance distributed steam plus insecticide over the block + frame for 4’43” consuming 4-5 liters of water from the tank, about 1 lt/m<sup>2</sup>, that corresponds to an insecticide rate of 10 l/ha. After the action, we waited 5 minutes and registered T°C data by a Flir thermographic camera before collecting, separately all the plants of each repetition of 0.25 m2. Infestation on the test was 20-28 spittles per square meter, but we found neither spittle nor nymphs in treated repetitions. Moreover, steam desiccated herbs after 3 days from the action. Finally, we discuss pros &amp; cons of the proposed integrated control action by efficacy, impact and possible interaction with other IPM vector components.