Source: http://era.daf.qld.gov.au/id/eprint/4718/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:08:29+00:00

Document:
Balu, A., Murugesan, S., Senthilkumar, P., Mahalakshmi, R. and Dhileepan, K. (2014) The leaf-feeding geometrid Isturgia disputaria (Guenee)-A potential biological control agent for prickly acacia, Vachellia nilotica subsp. indica (Benth.) Kyal. & Boatwr. (Mimosaceae) in Australia. Academia, 28 (2). pp. 81-86.
Prickly acacia (Vachellia nilotica subsp. indica), a native multipurpose tree in India, is a weed of National significance, and a target for biological control in Australia. Based on plant genetic and climatic similarities, native range surveys for identifying potential biological control agents for prickly acacia were conducted in India during 2008-2011. In the survey leaf-feeding geometrid, Isturgia disputaria Guenee (syn. Tephrina pulinda), widespread in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka States, was prioritized as a potential biological control agent based on field host range, damage potential and no choice test on non target plant species. Though the field host range study exhibited that V. nilotica ssp. indica and V. nilotica ssp. tomentosa were the primary hosts for successful development of the insect, I. disputaria, replicated no - choice larval feeding and development tests conducted on cut foliage and live plants of nine non-target acacia test plant species in India revealed the larval feeding and development on three of the nine non-target acacia species, V. tortilis, V. planiferons and V. leucophloea in addition to the V. nilotica ssp. indica and V. nilotica ssp. tomentosa. However, the proportion of larvae developing into adults was higher on V. nilotica subsp. indica and V. nilotica subsp. tomentosa, with 90% and 80% of the larvae completing development, respectively. In contrast, the larval mortality was higher on V. tortilis (70%), V. leucophloea (90%) and V. planiferons (70%). The no-choice test results support the earlier host specificity test results of I. disputaria from Pakistan, Kenya and under quarantine in Australia. Contrasting results between field host range and host use pattern under no-choice conditions are discussed.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.