Biological Control of Insect Pests: Southeast Asian Prospects - EcoPort

Asia
4.10 Hypothenemus hampei 171
County. HargreavesÕ claims that the introduction brought about a great
reduction in the impact of the coffee berry borer in Bwamba County must be
treated with reserve, the more so since De Toledo Piza and Pinto da Fonseca
(1935) state that neither P. nasuta nor H. coffeicola appeared to control the
borer in nearby Kampala. More recently, P. nasuta was reported to achieve
20% parasitisation in western Kenya in the dry season (Barrera et al. 1990b).
SRI LANKA
Stock of P. nasuta and H. coffeicola from Uganda were liberated in Sri
Lanka in 1938, but neither species became established (Hutson 1939).
INDONESIA
The introduction of Prorops nasuta to Java from Uganda in 1923 was the
earliest attempt to bring about the biological control of H. hampei which had
first been reported in Java in 1909 (Kalshoven 1981). P. nasuta was found to
be easily propagated (Leefmans 1924a), was distributed widely in
considerable numbers (Begemann 1926) and became established (Le Pelley
1968). However, it apparently could not maintain itself and was still being
bred for distribution in 1928 (UltŽe 1928) and in 1932 (Betrem 1932;
Schweizer 1932; UltŽe 1932).
Leefmans (1924a) drew attention to the fact that the P. nasuta did not
thrive in shade, and that it flourished best in black berries which tend to be
most abundant after harvest, when the parasite is least needed. The former
problem was solved by appropriate pruning but, despite improvements in
management to favour it and the long period spent in breeding and
disseminating it, the parasite seems not to have become established in Java
(Clausen 1978; Kalshoven 1981).
Cultures of Heterospilus coffeicola were taken to Java from Uganda
along with those of P. nasuta in 1923, but the wasp appears not to have been
released. Leefmans (1924a) seems to have concluded that it was likely to be
incompatible with P. nasuta.