Next Article in Journal
Seasonal Variations of Pollinator Assemblages among Urban and Rural Habitats: A Comparative Approach Using a Standardized Plant Community
Next Article in Special Issue
Improving Whitefly Management
Previous Article in Journal
Pest Activity and Protection Practices: Four Decades of Transformation in Quebec Apple Orchards
Previous Article in Special Issue
Tomato Chlorosis Virus Infection Facilitates Bemisia tabaci MED Reproduction by Elevating Vitellogenin Expression
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Bemisia tabaci on Vegetables in the Southern United States: Incidence, Impact, and Management

1
Agricultural Research Station, Fort Valley State University, 1005 State University Drive, Fort Valley, GA 31030, USA
2
U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, USDA-ARS, 2700 Savannah Highway, Charleston, SC 29414, USA
3
SE Fruit and Tree Nut Research Unit, USDA-ARS, 21 Dunbar Road, Byron, GA 31008, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2021, 12(3), 198; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12030198
Submission received: 1 February 2021 / Revised: 12 February 2021 / Accepted: 13 February 2021 / Published: 26 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Improving Whitefly Management)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci, was initially discovered in the United States in 1894 but was not considered an economic insect pest on various agricultural crops across the southern and western states. After the introduction of B. tabaci Middle East-Asia Minor 1 (MEAM1) into the United States around 1985, the insect rapidly spread throughout the Southern United States to Texas, Arizona, and California. Extreme field outbreaks occurred on vegetable and other crops in those areas. The sweetpotato whitefly is now regarded as one of the most destructive insect pests in vegetable production systems in the Southern United States. The direct and indirect plant damage caused by B. tabaci has led to substantial economic losses in vegetable crops. Bemisia tabaci outbreaks on vegetables in Georgia resulted in significant economic losses of 132.3 and 161.2 million US dollars (USD) in 2016 and 2017, respectively. Therefore, integrated pest management (IPM) tactics are warranted, including cultural control by manipulation of production practices, resistant vegetable varieties, biological control using various natural enemies, and the judicious use of insecticides.

Abstract

Bemisia tabaci Gennadius (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) is among the most economically important insect pests of various vegetable crops in the Southern United States. This insect is considered a complex of at least 40 morphologically indistinguishable cryptic species. Bemisia tabaci Middle East-Asia Minor 1 (MEAM1) was initially introduced in the United States around 1985 and has since rapidly spread across the Southern United States to Texas, Arizona, and California, where extreme field outbreaks have occurred on vegetable and other crops. This pest creates extensive plant damage through direct feeding on vegetables, secreting honeydew, causing plant physiological disorders, and vectoring plant viruses. The direct and indirect plant damage in vegetable crops has resulted in enormous economic losses in the Southern United States, especially in Florida, Georgia, and Texas. Effective management of B. tabaci on vegetables relies mainly on the utilization of chemical insecticides, particularly neonicotinoids. However, B. tabaci has developed considerable resistance to most insecticides. Therefore, alternative integrated pest management (IPM) strategies are required, such as cultural control by manipulation of production practices, resistant vegetable varieties, and biological control using a suite of natural enemies for the management of the pest.

1. Introduction

Whiteflies (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) have long been known as an economically important insect pest worldwide [1,2]. There are over 1550 species of whiteflies on a global scale [3,4]. The most widely known species of whiteflies are the sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci Gennadius (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), and the greenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporariorum Westwood (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) [5]. These two species are among the most destructive insect pests of agricultural crops, vegetables, and ornamental plants in the Southern United States (e.g., Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas) [6]. Specifically, B. tabaci is a major threat to vegetable production in the Southern United States [7,8,9]. The introduction of B. tabaci Middle East-Asia Minor 1 (MEAM1) into the United States around 1985 [10,11,12] resulted in substantial economic losses due to direct and indirect damage on vegetable crops [13,14,15]. Therefore, in integrated pest management (IPM) program of B. tabaci, multiple complementary tactics are warranted, including cultural measures, host plant resistance, biological control, along with the judicious use of chemical insecticides. This review summarizes the incidence, impact, and management of B. tabaci on vegetables in the Southern United States, as well as general information on species identification, biology, and plant damage.

2. Identification

The family Aleyrodidae in the insect order Hemiptera comprises insects that derive their common name “whiteflies” from the mealy white wax covering on the wings and bodies of adults [6]. Among the 1556 species of whiteflies in 161 genera around the world [3,4], only about 150 (10%) of these occur in the United States [16], and about 76 out of 150 species are known to occur in the Southeastern United States [6,17]. Of these 76 species of whiteflies, 33 species from 20 genera are considered to be common and economically important [6].
The three main species that cause problems in vegetables in North America and Hawaii are B. tabaci, T. vaporariorum, and the bandedwinged whitefly [Trialeurodes abutiloneus Haldeman (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae)] [18]. Bemisia tabaci is a primary insect pest of vegetable crops throughout the Southern United States [7,8,9].
Bemisia tabaci was initially documented by Gennadius as Aleurodes tabaci, a whitefly found in Greece [19]. Extensive studies on the nomenclature have demonstrated that this entity is a complex of cryptic species (formerly called biotypes) with considerable genetic diversity [20,21,22,23,24]. Body morphology (e.g., setae and spines of nymphs, and adult body lengths) among B. tabaci cryptic species is the same; however, they can differ in their biological characteristics (e.g., ability to induce phytotoxic responses, plant virus transmission capabilities, pesticide resistance expression, symbiotic bacteria, and host plants), biochemical attributes (e.g., diagnostic esterase banding pattern), and mitochondrial COI (cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1) DNA sequence [25,26,27,28,29,30]. Confirmation of a given cryptic species is determined by DNA analysis. The B. tabaci MEAM1 (formally called biotype B) group is the most common around the world, which possibly originated from the Middle East Asia Minor region [31]. Bemisia tabaci MEAM1 was identified in the late 1980s [26]. The field populations of B. tabaci in the United States are almost exclusively MEAM1. Another principal B. tabaci is the Mediterranean (MED, formally called Q biotype) group, which likely originated from the Iberian Peninsula and has since spread globally [29,32,33]. To date, the genetic groups of B. tabaci consist of at least 40 morphologically indistinguishable cryptic species [20,30,31,34]. Moreover, the cryptic species of B. tabaci in some reports have not been identified. Thus, different cryptic species of B. tabaci in this review were all referred to as B. tabaci.

3. Biology

The life cycle of B. tabaci consists of egg, first nymphal instar, three additional nymphal instars (second, third, and fourth), and adult [35,36].
Eggs: Female B. tabaci deposits approximately 0.2 mm long pear-shaped eggs into the mesophyll or inner tissue of the leaf [37]. Eggs are generally laid on the underside surface of the tender and upper leaves of the plants and are attached to the leaf by a stalk-like structure called the pedicel [38]. Eggs are pale yellow when first laid and become brown before hatching (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Nymphs: Bemisia tabaci nymphs are oval, about 0.7 mm long for the fourth instar, and dorsoventrally flattened (Figure 1 and Figure 2) [35,37]. The early first instar or “crawler” is highly mobile after hatching and moves a short distance before settling to feed [36,39]. The lateral margins of the crawlers have many setae that are absent in later instars [35]. Once settled, they undergo ecdysis three times, and the resultant three nymphal stages are scale-like, sedentary, and possess greatly reduced legs and antennae [35]. The later developmental stage of the fourth nymphal instar is called “pupal stage” [40]. Before transition into an adult, externally observable characteristic of the fourth instar is the enlargement of the eyes from small red pinpoints to larger diffuse red oval spots, and finally to conspicuous red eye spots (Figure 1) [40]. Thus, the fourth instar in this period is also named “red-eyed nymph” (Figure 1) [40].
Adults: Bemisia tabaci females (about 0.94 mm long) are larger than the males (about 0.78 mm long) in size [41]. A B. tabaci adult possesses a pale-yellow body and two pairs of white wings covered with white powder wax [36,37]. At rest, the wings are held “roof-like” over the abdomen (Figure 1) [42]. Adults are typically found on the lower leaf surface of most plants [42].
A Bemisia tabaci female has a rounded abdomen, while the male abdomen is more pointed [42]. Moreover, B. tabaci adults possess arrhenotokous reproductive system, with unfertilized eggs developing into haploid males and fertilized eggs developing into diploid females [42]. The average longevity of adult females ranged from 44 days at 20 °C to 10 days at 35 °C [43,44,45,46].
The developmental time of B. tabaci, from egg to adult, is 14 to 105 days, but varies depending on temperature and host plant [43,44,47,48,49]. For instance, at 20–32 °C, development time ranged from 36.0 to 14.6 days on cantaloupe (Cucumis melo L. var. cantalupensis) and 37.9 to16.3 days on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) [47]. Several studies on different crops have reported an optimal temperature range for B. tabaci growth as 20–33 °C [43,48].
The fecundity of B. tabaci varied from 324 eggs per female at 20 °C to 12.5 eggs per female at 37 °C [43,44,45,46]. Bemisia tabaci females were reported to be capable of laying over 500 eggs [50]. Host plants may influence the fecundity [46,51]. For example, at 30 °C, eggs per female ranged from 153.3 to 158.3 on cantaloupe, 117.0 to 117.5 on cotton, and 2.1 to 40.5 on pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) [47].
The survivorship of B. tabaci is also dependent on temperature and host plant [43,44,45,47,49]. The survivorship from egg to adult was 40%, 89%, and 37% at 15 °C, 25 °C, and 35 °C, respectively [43]. The survival rate of immature at 20 to 32 °C ranged from 100% to 76.5% on cantaloupe, 64.4% to 37.3% on cotton, and 8.3% to 0.0% on pepper [47].

4. Hosts and Plant Damage

Bemisia tabaci is among the most important insect pests worldwide in subtropical and tropical agriculture as well as in greenhouse production systems [37,52,53,54,55]. Bemisia tabaci is a highly polyphagous species which attacks over 1000 plant species belonging to 74 families [54,56,57,58]. The vegetable crops most affected by B. tabaci include bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. var. italica), cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata), cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L. var. botrytis), cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.), eggplant (Solanum melongena L.), melon (Citrullus lanatus L.), pepper, squash (Cucurbita pepo L.), tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.), and watermelon (Citrullus lanatus L.) [37]. Bemisia tabaci also feed on agricultural crops, such as alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), cotton, peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.), soybean [Glycine max L. Merr.], as well as ornamental plants, including poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima Willd. ex Klotzsch), hibiscus (Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L.), and chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat. Hemsl.). These agricultural crops and ornamental plants may serve as sources of B. tabaci for vegetable plantings [37,58].
Bemisia tabaci are sap-sucking insects with piercing–sucking mouthparts [2,35,41]. Infestation by B. tabaci may result in plant damage in four ways [35,41,59].
Firstly, B. tabaci nymphs and adults remove sap from phloem in plant stems and leaves [59,60]. Feeding damage caused by large populations may turn leaves yellow and dry, or even cause them to fall off plants [14]. Furthermore, heavy infestations of nymphs and adults could cause seedling death, stunting, or reduction in vigor and yield of older plants [14,61].
Secondly, B. tabaci nymphs and adults excrete honeydew, which renders leaves sticky and forms a substrate for the growth of black sooty mold [59,62]. The honeydew attracts ants, which impedes the activities of natural enemies of B. tabaci and other insect pests [63]. Moreover, the black sooty mold may create indirect damage by inhibiting plant respiration and photosynthesis [58].
Thirdly, B. tabaci has been labeled as a “supervector” because it transmits over 100 plant viruses, including Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV), Tomato chlorosis virus (ToCV), Cucurbit yellow stunting disorder virus (CYSDV), Cucumber vein yellowing virus (CVYV), Squash vein yellowing virus (SqVYV), and Bean golden mosaic virus (BGMV) [37,64,65,66,67]. TYLCV is among the most devastating viruses that infect tomato crops worldwide [7,22,59,68,69].
Fourthly, B. tabaci adults and nymphs can inject salivary fluid during feeding, which may cause plant disorders [70]. Different physiological disorders induced by B. tabaci include silvering of squash [71,72,73], chlorotic streak of bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) [74], and irregular ripening of tomato [20,71,75].
These four types of plant damage can be severe when occurring alone or together. However, the hierarchy of B. tabaci damage potential is plant viruses > plant disorders > sap removal, leading to the reverse relationship for economic injury levels [76].

5. Incidence and Impact of B. tabaci on Vegetables in the Southern United States

Bemisia tabaci is a major insect pest in greenhouse-grown and field-grown vegetables in the United States [7,8,9]. This insect is a key pest of various vegetable crops in the southern states of the United States [62]. It has been found throughout the Southern United States and can survive in winter outdoors as far north as South Carolina [77]. Here, this concludes the incidence and impact of B. tabaci on vegetable crops in the Southern United States, including Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The first B. tabaci collected in the New World was discovered in 1894 in the United States on sweet potato and described as Aleyrodes inconspicua Quaintance, then named as sweetpotato whitefly [78]. Thereafter, B. tabaci had been a long-time resident in different agricultural regions throughout the southern and western states. However, it was not recognized as an economic pest until 1981 when fall vegetables, melon crops, and sugar beets were decimated in the Southwest United States by Lettuce infectious yellows virus (LIYV) transmitted by B. tabaci that was later designated “biotype A” (now called New World population) [15]. Soon after the introduction of B. tabaci MEAM1 into the United States around 1985, unprecedented losses started occurring on poinsettia in Florida in 1986, followed by high infestations in field-grown tomato crops [10,11,12]. The appearance of silverleaf symptoms on squash was also reported in Florida in 1986 [71,79]. In 1987, outbreaks of B. tabaci MEAM1 and two new disorders (squash silverleaf and tomato irregular ripening) occurred widely in South Florida [11]. Then B. tabaci MEAM1 rapidly spread across the Southern United States to Texas, Arizona, and California, where extreme field outbreaks occurred on melons, cotton, and other vegetable crops during the early 1990s [80,81,82,83]. Moreover, the begomovirus Tomato mottle virus (ToMoV) and TYLCV appeared in Florida in 1989 and 1994, respectively [76]. Notably, populations of B. tabaci were particularly problematic in the Southeastern United States in 2007 [54].
Bemisia tabaci is a significant threat to tomato production in fields in the Southeastern United States [7,22,68,69]. It can transmit phloem-limited TYLCV to tomato plants in a persistent–circulative manner [84,85,86,87]. TYLCV is now endemic throughout most of the Southern United States, including Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Texas [88,89,90].

5.1. Florida

Tomato is the most important vegetable crop in Florida, which leads all other states in fresh market production [91]. Bemisia tabaci has been a major pest of tomato plants since 1986. In Florida, the main whitefly-transmitted viral concerns are TYLCV, BGMV, SqVYV, Cucurbit leaf crumple virus (CuLCrV), and CYSDV [92]. Economic losses in the tomato industry from B. tabaci and associated geminivirus in Florida in 1991 were reported to exceed USD 125 million (Table 1) [93]. Direct damage, effects of the whitefly-borne tomato mottle geminivirus, and control costs in Florida were estimated at USD 141 million for the 1990–1991 seasons (Table 1) [14].

5.2. Georgia

Bemisia tabaci MEAM1 was confirmed from 1991 field collections from South Georgia where high populations were observed in peanut [101]. Bemisia tabaci and whitefly-transmitted viral diseases (e.g., CuLCrV, CYSDV, and TYLCV) pose a great threat to the economical production of vegetable crops, especially tomato, snap bean, and most cucurbit crops in Southern Georgia [102,103]. Bemisia tabaci outbreaks occurred on vegetables in Georgia in 2016 and 2017 [94,95]. Whitefly-transmitted viral diseases, such as CuLCrV and CYSDV, were particularly severe [94,95]. Economic losses associated with B. tabaci infestation and its viral transmitted diseases were substantial and estimated at approximately USD 132.3 and 161.2 million in 2016 and 2017, respectively (Table 1) [94,95]. Particularly, these viruses during the fall of 2017 caused 45% and 35% of the crop losses in snap bean and squash, respectively (Table 1) [94,95].

5.3. Texas

Bemisia tabaci is the most economically consequential whitefly species in Texas [104]. In a 1991 outbreak of B. tabaci in South Texas, the direct losses of vegetable were estimated at USD 29 million (Table 1) [96].

5.4. Arkansas

Bemisia tabaci has become increasingly crucial in cucurbit production in Arkansas. In years with hot and dry summers, there were numerous reports of B. tabaci infestations by cucurbit growers, especially on fall pumpkins (Cucurbita maxima Duchesne) [97]. Bemisia tabaci generally do not survive winters in Arkansas. Bemisia tabaci problems in fruiting vegetables (e.g., eggplant, okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.), and pepper) in 2006 in Arkansas may have been correlated to the concurrence of several mild winters and hot–dry summers (Table 1) [97].

5.5. Kentucky

Bemisia tabaci is a relatively new pest to Kentucky and has been observed to attack squash and tomato [98,105]. Though it has been a problem in the southern regions of the United States for several years, B. tabaci outbreaks in Kentucky had been relatively uncommon [98]. However, problems were observed during the dry hot summer of 2007 in tomato heirloom varieties (Table 1) [98]. Bemisia tabaci infests greenhouse-grown plants throughout the year in Kentucky but is unable to survive winters in the crop fields [98].

5.6. Tennessee

Trialeurodes vaporariorum is the most common species infesting tomato in Tennessee, while B. tabaci sometimes infests greenhouse-grown tomato. However, B. tabaci infestations in field-grown tomato have been sporadic in 2014 in Tennessee; less than 5% of fields have problems (Table 1) [99]. The most critical damage is sooty mold growth on honeydew, which accumulates on fruits and leaves, reducing photosynthesis [99].

5.7. South Carolina

Bemisia tabaci is a sporadic problem in vegetables in South Carolina. An outbreak of B. tabaci in 2017 was unusually severe and widespread (Table 1) [100].

5.8. Other States

Compared to the aforementioned states, the impact of B. tabaci on field-grown vegetables has been relatively less severe in other states in the Southern United States (e.g., Alabama, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Virginia, and West Virginia). Thus, minimal documentation is available.

6. Management

Extensive economic losses owing to the plant damage and control efforts of B. tabaci have resulted in the acceleration of research to provide potential management strategies [41,106]. This review discusses the common control measures (e.g., cultural, chemical, and biological control, as well as host-plant resistance) on vegetables used mainly in the Southern United States, but relevant information from other regions of the world is included.

6.1. Monitoring and Sampling

Efficient, accurate, and practical monitoring and sampling methods are crucial to the implementation of any management strategy [107,108] because those tools provide consistent and reliable means for measuring pest density and determining the need for control [50]. Numerous studies have concentrated on determining the monitoring and sampling methods for B. tabaci on vegetable crops, such as tomato [109,110,111,112,113], cucumber [114], watermelon [115,116,117], muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) [116], melon [118,119], common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) [120,121], eggplant [116], and paprika (Capsicum annuum L.) [122]. Most of the research has compared various methods and techniques for determining relative density (e.g., on-plant counts, beat trays, and sticky traps); describing the within and between plant distributions of different life stages; selection of optimal sample units, sizes, and sampling techniques; as well as establishment of various economic injury levels and sampling plans (sequential and binomial).
The yellow sticky trap is among the most widely used methods, especially in larger-scale monitoring of B. tabaci incidence. However, due to the lack of correlation between trap catches and field populations, the yellow sticky trap may not be utilized when estimating B. tabaci density in either research or pest management application [123,124,125].
Progress has been made in automating insect counting that could reduce effort and increase accuracy in monitoring and sampling insect pests [122,126,127,128,129]. For instance, automating the count of whitefly nymphs on leaves has been investigated with digital video and image processing [126]. A prototype system was developed to automate the counting of adult T. vaporariorum and B. tabaci using digital image analysis [127]. More recently, a novel counting algorithm has been explored for estimating whiteflies on vegetables (cayenne pepper (Capsicum annuum L.), cucumber, tomato, and eggplant) utilizing computer images with high accuracy [128].

6.2. Cultural Control

Cultural control relies on the manipulation of production practices to render the environment unfavorable to pests [41,130].
Water and fertility management plays a vital role as a cultural tactic in B. tabaci control on vegetable plants [131,132,133,134,135,136,137]. For instance, compared to furrow and sprinkler irrigation, daily drip irrigation resulted in the lowest B. tabaci density and incidence of whitefly-transmitted viruses in cucumber, green bean, squash, and tomato [132]. However, when integrating with the tomato–coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) intercropping strategy, sprinkler irrigation reduced B. tabaci and associated viruses on organic tomato crops [135]. Moreover, increasing nitrogen levels increased B. tabaci populations in okra [131] and hydroponic tomato [136]. Several sulfur-containing fertilizers at different rates were studied in 10 vegetable crops and were demonstrated to have mixed effects on B. tabaci populations [137].
One important cultural control strategy is to increase host-free periods or reduce intercrop migrations [138,139,140]. Altering planting dates is one means to provide host-free periods between successive crops [141]. The incidence of B. tabaci and associated viruses on tomato and other vegetable crops in Florida was greatly reduced by maintaining fields free of host crops for at least two months during the rainy summer period [139]. However, no benefit was observed regarding B. tabaci abundance and associated virus incidence by planting cucumber, squash, and tomato one month earlier than standard planting dates in a study in Egypt [142].
Living mulches (a cover crop interplanted or undersown with a main crop and intended to serve the purposes of a mulch) and synthetic mulches have been adopted for mitigating B. tabaci problems on vegetables [143,144,145,146]. Living mulches are effective in reducing the density of B. tabaci and the incidence of associated viruses in tomato [145] and zucchini squash (Cucurbita pepo L.) [147,148]. Synthetic reflective mulch resulted in a lower incidence of B. tabaci and related viruses in watermelon [143], zucchini squash [147], snap bean [149], and tomato [144,150]. Silver plastic mulch effectively decreased the incidence of TYLCV in tomato fields in Florida [151]. Furthermore, it was indicated that zucchini squash infested by B. tabaci within synthetic UV reflective mulches obtained significantly higher yields than those grown with living mulch of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) in Florida [146].
In protective structures (such as greenhouses and screenhouses), B. tabaci can be physically excluded from the vegetable crops when using fine mesh materials [152,153]. However, a conflict exists between adequate ventilation and the small mesh size required for the exclusion of B. tabaci. Thus, an electric field screen has proven successful in the “repel and/or capture” of B. tabaci on tomato crops in ventilated greenhouses [154,155,156,157,158,159].
UV-absorbing materials have been applied in high tunnels and other forms of protected culture to reduce B. tabaci populations on vegetables [160,161,162,163]. UV-absorbing plastic sheets/film cover could significantly decrease B. tabaci populations and the incidence of whitefly-borne viruses on tomato crops [160,161,162]. It was reported that the virus infection levels in tomato were only 6%–10% in UV-blocking greenhouses compared with 96%–100% in UV-nonblocking greenhouses [163].
Trap crops (preferred host plants which are used to draw a herbivore away from a less-preferred main crop) [164] and barrier crops are among the cultural control methods promoted for B. tabaci management. Studies associated with trap crops and barrier crops have mixed results. Squash, cucumber, and eggplant have been shown to be promising trap crops for protecting tomato [165,166,167,168] and snap bean [149] against B. tabaci. Maize (Zea mays L.) was demonstrated to be a good barrier crop of tomato [168]. Conversely, it was revealed that eggplant or corn as a trap crop did not reduce B. tabaci populations on tomato crops [169]. Moreover, neither B. tabaci egg nor nymphal densities on common bean leaves were reduced by the trap crop eggplant or the barrier crop corn in North Florida [170].
Intercropping to prevent B. tabaci from locating host plants has shown promise. Lower B. tabaci densities and/or incidence of associated viruses were observed on tomato intercropped with coriander [135,145,171], squash [172], maize [142], chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) [173], cucumber [169,174], French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) [175], onion (Allium cepa L.) [176], and garlic (Allium sativum L.) [176]. Additionally, intercropping okra with coriander or ginger (Zingiber officinale L.) has been reported as one alternative strategy to suppress B. tabaci populations in okra [177,178]. Zucchini intercropped with okra had lower numbers of adult B. tabaci and a lower severity of squash silverleaf disorder compared with non-intercropped zucchini [148]. By intercropping cucumber with lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), the number of B. tabaci adults on cucumber leaves was reduced by 69.7% [179].

6.3. Host-Plant Resistance

Host-plant resistance is an essential strategy in successful IPM program for the suppression of B. tabaci populations [180].
In tomato, numerous efforts for breeding resistance to B. tabaci have been extensively implemented. Bemisia tabaci exhibited reduced host preference (antixenosis) and reproduction (antibiosis) on tomato cultivars with Mi gene (a broad-spectrum resistance gene, which encodes a coiled-coil, nucleotide-binding, leucine-rich repeat receptor) [181,182,183]. For example, the tomato gene Mi-1.2 has been shown to confer resistance to B. tabaci by decreasing infestation, oviposition, and the number of fourth instar nymphs [184]. The types of tomato trichomes play a critical role in resistant tomato varieties. It was observed that the tomato variety Martha with a high density of glandular trichomes was moderately resistant to B. tabaci [185]. In the wild tomato, Solanum peruvianum (reported as Lycopersicon hirsutum), the elevated type IV glandular trichomes (one of four types of glandular trichomes (types I, IV, VI, and VII)) were found to be highly correlated with a reduction in B. tabaci infestation [186]. Nevertheless, the results were not consistent, as some studies revealed that higher densities of non-glandular trichomes could be associated with increased oviposition rates by B. tabaci [187,188]. Moreover, the development of B. tabaci resistance in tomato has concentrated on screening existing tomato varieties [189] or their wild relatives of cultivated tomato [187,190,191,192,193]. Newer tomato varieties, such as Charger, Rally, and Tygress, have been discovered to support significantly season-long low densities of B. tabaci eggs and nymphs in Florida [189].
Resistance against B. tabaci and associated viruses was also detected in many additional cultivated vegetable crops, such as watermelon [143,194], mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) [195,196], chili pepper [197,198,199], pepper accessions (Capsicum annuum L., C. chinense Jacq., and C. baccatum L.) [200], and collard (Brassica oleracea L. var. viridis) [201,202]. A perennial desert species of Citrullus ecirrhosus was observed to exhibit resistance against B. tabaci, and thus became exploited as a source of B. tabaci resistance in breeding cultivars of watermelon [194]. Two mung bean varieties, SML-668 and Pant Moong-1, have been identified to be moderately susceptible to B. tabaci and Mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV) [196]. Eighty-two commercial snap bean lines were screened for two years and two varieties were identified that consistently displayed moderate levels of resistance to both CuLCrV and Sida golden mosaic virus (SiGMV) transmitted by B. tabaci (Bhabesh Dutta; Personal communication) [203]. Chili pepper genotypes of IHR 4283, IHR 4329, IHR 4300, IHR 4321, and IHR 4338 were reported to harbor low numbers of B. tabaci adults and nymphs [199]. The accessions IAC-1544 (C. annuum), IAC-1545 (C. chinense), and IAC-1579 (C. annuum) could be classified as good sources of resistance against B. tabaci and associated virus Tomato severe rugose virus (ToSRV) for cultivated pepper [200]. Collard greens genotypes VE and J exhibited high resistance against B. tabaci [202].
Transgenic vegetable plants that provide resistance to B. tabaci and/or associated viruses have been developed, such as transgenic tomato [204,205,206,207,208,209,210], transgenic bean [211,212,213], and transgenic lettuce [214]. For example, transgenic tomato plants were screened for resistance to TYLCV, and it was demonstrated that no TYLCV symptoms were observed and no TYLCV genomic DNA was detected in the progeny of TYLCV transgenic tomato plants [208]. After B. tabaci fed on genetically modified bean for 8 days, the BGMV DNA amount in B. tabaci was significantly reduced 84% [213]. Moreover, it was observed that within 5 days of feeding on genetically engineered lettuce, B. tabaci showed a mortality rate of up to 98.1% [214].

6.4. Chemical Control

Applications of chemical insecticides are among the main tools used commonly by vegetable growers to control B. tabaci. Heavy reliance on insecticides against B. tabaci is still widespread in open field vegetable crop systems [41,59]. The systemic neonicotinoids play a crucial role, particularly those that are relatively stable in the soil and effectively absorbed through the root system. A group of insecticides with other modes of action has been widely utilized against B. tabaci, such as the insect growth regulators (pyriproxyfen and buprofezen), ketoenols (spiromesifen and spirotetramat), and diamides (anthranilic diamides, cyantraniliprole, and chlorantraniliprole) [41,59]. Oils, soaps, and detergents have also been applied widely for B. tabaci control [41,59].

6.4.1. Neonicotinoid Insecticides

The neonicotinoids are among the most effective group of insecticides. Imidacloprid was the first commercial neonicotinoid, eventually becoming the most widely used insecticide worldwide [215]. Imidacloprid is effective against sucking insect pests, including B. tabaci [216]. The application of imidacloprid on vegetables and melons was a key chemical tactic in the United States [138]. Imidacloprid has widespread use for the management of B. tabaci on vegetables in Florida [217,218], and its application resulted in dramatic declines in B. tabaci populations on tomato plants in Southwest Florida during the period 1994–1996 [217]. Imidacloprid has been extensively applied against B. tabaci on vegetables in Texas as well [219,220]. It was demonstrated that imidacloprid provided exceptionally good control of B. tabaci on cabbage and cantaloupe in Texas [219].

6.4.2. Insect Growth Regulators

Pyriproxyfen, a juvenile hormone analog, has been utilized to successfully control B. tabaci in cotton [221,222,223]. Buprofezin, a chitin inhibitor, has been widely used against B. tabaci on cotton crop in the Southwestern United States [223]. Buprofezin has been labeled against B. tabaci on melons, and pyriproxyfen has the potential to be labeled against B. tabaci on melons and vegetables [220]. It was revealed that three biweekly applications of insect growth regulators (pyriproxyfen and buprofezin) and five biweekly applications of fungal insecticides (Mycotrol® and Naturalis-L®), plus one soil application of imidacloprid, significantly reduced B. tabaci populations on spring cantaloupe in Texas [220].

6.4.3. Ketoenols

Ketoenols are a relatively new class of insecticides that are derivatives of tetronic acids (spiromesifen) and tetramic acids (spirotetramat) [224]. These compounds act as inhibitors of lipid biosynthesis by targeting acetyl-CoA carboxylase and adversely influence juvenile stages with additional effects on adult fecundity [225,226]. Spiromesifen and spirotetramat have been widely applied to effectively control B. tabaci on vegetable crops [227,228,229,230,231]. Spiromesifen was found to be highly toxic to B. tabaci on melon and collard with almost 100% nymphal mortality in laboratory bioassays and exhibit excellent promise against B. tabaci populations on melon and collard in field trials [228]. It has also been reported that spirotetramat is superior against B. tabaci on bell pepper compared to the neonicotinoid insecticide of imidacloprid 200 SL [230].

6.4.4. Diamides

Diamide insecticides are the most recent chemistry class in the market [232] and act on insect ryanodine receptors causing mortality by the uncontrolled release of calcium ion stores in muscle cells [233]. Cyantraniliprole, a commercialized diamide insecticide, targets sucking pests, such as B. tabaci [234]. Cyantraniliprole has been demonstrated to be effective against B. tabaci in tomato [235,236,237,238,239]. For instance, cyantraniliprole applied as soil treatments or foliar sprays provided excellent adult B. tabaci control, TYLCV suppression, as well as reduced oviposition and nymph survival on tomato [238].

6.4.5. Soaps and Oils

Soaps and oils have been long used as insecticides [240]. Both soaps and oils function through blocking the spiracles, oils with a thin oil film, and soaps with super-wetted water [241]. Oils are also known to reduce the settling of B. tabaci on plants and influence the transmission of plant viruses [242]. Soaps and oils have been proven to provide excellent efficacy in suppressing B. tabaci populations on vegetables, such as tomato [243,244,245,246,247], cucumber [243], zucchini squash [243], collard [248], and melon [249]. For example, an insecticidal soap, two horticultural oils, and 12 detergents resulted in >85% mortality of B. tabaci nymphs in zucchini squash and tomato under greenhouse conditions; and Saf-T-Side (mineral) OilTM, Natur’lTM (vegetable) oil, New DayTM liquid detergent or M-PedeTM reduced the number of B. tabaci adults on heavily infested cucumber plants in field in Florida [243].

6.4.6. Plant-Based Products

Various plant-based products have been extensively investigated for their activity against B. tabaci on vegetable crops [250,251,252,253]. Plant extracts were indicated to adversely impact B. tabaci populations, including neem-based products [254,255,256,257,258], extracts from milkweed (Calotropis procera (Aiton) W.T. Aiton) and garlic [259], extracts from Jatropha curcas L. [260], as well as fermented extracts of neem and wild garlic (Tulbaghia violacea Harvey) [261]. A drench application of NeemAzal, a commercial neem-based product, resulted in up to 90% mortality of immature B. tabaci populations in tropical open field-grown and greenhouse-grown tomato [262]. Moreover, plant-derived essential oils have also been widely evaluated to manage B. tabaci [263,264,265,266,267,268,269]. For example, essential oils of Piper callosum, Adenocalymma alliaceum, Pelargonium graveolens, and Plectranthus neochilus deterred the settlement and oviposition of B. tabaci adults on tomato plants [266].

6.5. Insecticide Resistance and Its Management

A review of insecticide resistance in B. tabaci summarized various resistance mechanisms, several bioassays used to evaluate resistance, studies for monitoring resistance, known cases of insecticide resistance, and some strategies that can be used to mitigate resistance [270]. More recently, another review also concluded insecticide resistance and its management issues among B. tabaci species but focusing mainly on research published from 2010 to 2020 [59]. Their review proposed several tactics for alleviating the resistance in B. tabaci, namely, chemical control with selective insecticides, rotation of insecticides with different modes of action, insecticide mixtures, and nonchemical control methods (e.g., cultural control, host-plant resistance, and biological control methods) [59].

6.6. Biological Control

Biological control plays an essential role in B. tabaci IPM systems. There are at least 48 species of predators, 62 species of parasitoids, and 9 species of pathogens reported as natural enemies of B. tabaci [37,271]. The natural enemies associated with B. tabaci include the predators in the following genera: Brumoides, Verania, Cheilomenes, Macrolophus, Nesidiocoris, Geocoris, Orius, Chrysopa, Coccinella, and Amblyseius; the parasitoids in the genera Encarsia and Eretmocerus; the nematodes in the genera Steinernema and Heterorhabditis; as well as the fungi in the genera Beauveria, Cordyceps (formerly known as Isaria or Paecilomyces), and Verticillium [272].
Numerous studies have been conducted and reviewed on the distribution, life history, bionomics, and ecology of natural enemies for B. tabaci management [271,273,274,275,276]. The focus here is the efficacy of natural enemies against B. tabaci on vegetable crops over the past two decades.

6.6.1. Predators

Although over 150 arthropod species have been described as predators of B. tabaci, only a few have been studied thoroughly and many are still under limited laboratory observations or qualitative field records [271,273]. Most of the known predators of B. tabaci are coccinellid beetles, predaceous bugs, lacewings, and phytoseiid mites.
The predatory Harmonia axyridis Pallas (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) was demonstrated to suppress B. tabaci in greenhouse-grown tomato when released with a parasitoid, Encarsia formosa Gahan or Encarsia sophia Girault and Dodd (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) [277]. Delphastus catalinae Horn (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) is the most commonly used predacious natural enemy and commercially available for B. tabaci control on various vegetable crops in greenhouses [41]. For example, significant reductions in B. tabaci populations on tomato plants were attributed to the release of D. catalinae [278]. This beetle originates from tropical regions, but wild populations exist in Central and Southern Florida [279]. Field populations of D. catalinae are not known to occur in Northern Florida, Georgia, or South Carolina [279].
In vegetable greenhouses, successful biological control of B. tabaci using mirids includes the inoculative and augmentative release of Macrolophus pygmaeus Rambur (Hemiptera: Miridae) and Nesidiocoris tenuis Reuter (Heteroptera: Miridae). For instance, M. pygmaeus could control B. tabaci populations in melon when released at 6 adults/plant into the initial infestation of 10 B. tabaci adults/plant in greenhouses [280]. Two release rates of N. tenuis (1 and 4 individuals/plant) resulted in a >90% reduction in B. tabaci populations in tomato under greenhouse conditions [281]. However, N. tenuis did not contribute to B. tabaci suppression in protected sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L. (Solanaceae) cv. Spiro) [282]. Predation on B. tabaci was compromised when M. pygmaeus and N. tenuis coexisted on tomato plants but was improved when the parasitoid Eretmocerus mundus Mercet (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) was added into the mix [283]. Additionally, combining another mirid predator, Macrolophus melanotoma Costa (Hemiptera: Miridae), and the parasitoid Er. mundus supported a low number of B. tabaci in greenhouse-grown eggplant [284].
The release of the lacewing Chrysoperla rufilabris Burmeister (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) provided significant B. tabaci suppression on watermelon in the field, but no effect in a legume field [285]. The predatory efficiency of another lacewing Chrysoperla carnea Stephens (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) on B. tabaci in greenhouse-grown tomato was also investigated, and the lowest number of B. tabaci was observed at a release rate of 10 C. carnea larvae/plant [286]. Furthermore, the reduction in B. tabaci in squash was >90% after a third predator release of 10 C. carnea larvae/plant and reached 100% after six releases [287]. Bemisia tabaci populations on sweet pepper plants were reduced about 97% after the second predator release of 10 C. carnea larvae/plant [287]. Integrating C. carnea with the predatory bug Orius albidipennis Reuter (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) and the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) decreased B. tabaci populations and increased cucumber yields in greenhouses [288].
The predatory mite Amblyseius swirskii Athias-Henriot (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) is considered among the most effective natural enemies and utilized extensively on vegetable crops [289]. Under semi-field conditions, A. swirskii at two release rates of 25 and 100 mites/m2 suppressed B. tabaci almost totally when an initial infestation was 8 B. tabaci adults per sweet pepper plant [290]. Similarly, A. swirskii provided a significant reduction in the B. tabaci populations in sweet pepper in greenhouses [282,291]. Moreover, the combination of 50 A. swirskii/m2 and 12 Er. mundus/m2 was the most efficient strategy in protected sweet pepper crops at an initial infestation of 50 adults of B. tabaci per plant [290]. Integrating the predatory mirids N. tenuis or M. pygmaeus with A. swirskii significantly suppressed B. tabaci populations on sweet pepper under greenhouse conditions [292].
The predatory mite Amblyseius barkeri Hughes or Amblyseius cucumeris Oudemans (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) suppressed B. tabaci populations on tomato plants in greenhouses [293]. Another predatory mite, Amblyseius tamatavensis Blommers (Acarina: Phytoseiidae), was first reported in 2018 in Southern Florida [294] and has been found to result in a 60% to 80% reduction in B. tabaci populations on bell pepper plants under laboratory conditions [295].

6.6.2. Parasitoids

Parasitoids as biocontrol agents play a crucial role in IPM program of B. tabaci. The majority parasitoids of B. tabaci are from the genera Encarsia and Eretmocerus (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) [41,59,271], which are also the most common parasitoids attacking B. tabaci in Florida [92]. Encarsia formosa, Eretmocerus eremicus Rose and Zolnerowich (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), and Er. mundus have been extensively investigated for B. tabaci control [41,293].
Encarsia formosa is the most widely used parasitoid for the biological control of B. tabaci on greenhouse-grown vegetable crops [41]. For instance, releases of low numbers of En. formosa and Er. mundus resulted in B. tabaci parasitism of 62.0% and 77.9%, respectively, in sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) field [296].
Eretmocerus species (especially Er. eremicus and Er. mundus) have recently gained important focus in the biological control of B. tabaci [297,298,299,300]. For example, Er. eremicus significantly suppressed B. tabaci eggs and nymphs in mint under greenhouse conditions [301,302]. Moreover, Er. mundus provided high incidence of parasitism and significant control of B. tabaci in sweet pepper and tomato in greenhouses [299,300,303,304]. Integrating Er. mundus with A. swirskii or M. caliginosus greatly reduced B. tabaci populations on greenhouse-grown sweet pepper and tomato plants [282,303].

6.6.3. Entomopathogens

Entomopathogens (e.g., fungi, viruses, nematodes, protists, and bacteria) as biological control agents are a major component of IPM programs in regulating populations of insect pests [305,306,307]. Entomopathogens are viable alternatives to chemical insecticides due to minimal adverse effects on humans, other non-target organisms, and the environment [308,309], as well as delaying the development of insecticide resistance in pest populations by reducing insecticide inputs [310].
Entomopathogenic nematodes in the genera Steinernema and Heterorhabditis are important biological control agents that are employed to control various destructive insect pests [306,311,312]. These nematodes are obligate parasites in nature and kill insects with the aid of mutualistic bacteria [313]. Entomopathogenic nematodes play an essential role in B. tabaci management on vegetable crops [314,315,316,317,318]. For example, the applications of Steinernema feltiae Filipjev (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae) alone or combined with the insecticide imidacloprid significantly reduced B. tabaci survival in tomato and verbena (Verbena officinalis L.) [314,315,316,317]. Similarly, integrating the entomopathogenic nematode Steinernema carpocapsae Wesier (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae) with the insecticides thiacloprid or spiromesifen provided high B. tabaci mortality of 86.5% and 94.3%, respectively, on tomato plants [318]. Furthermore, the entomopathogenic nematodes Heterorhabditis bacteriophora Poinar (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae) Guatemala strain; H. bacteriophora Chiapas strain; as well as Heterorhabditis indica Poinar, Karunakar, and David (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae) native strain from Sinaloa, Mexico killed up to 95% of B. tabaci nymphs on tomato leaves under laboratory conditions [319]. However, the efficacy was not consistently high across studies. For example, mortality of first and second nymphal stages of B. tabaci in pepper caused by entomopathogenic nematodes was reported to be very low: 17.44% for H. bacteriophora, 35.26% for S. carpocapsae, and 18.48% for S. feltiae [320]. The application of S. feltiae only resulted in 32% and 28% B. tabaci mortality on tomato and cucumber plants, respectively [321].
Entomopathogenic fungi are also major components of plant protection programs for managing economically important insect pests [276,310,322,323,324,325]. Most entomopathogenic fungi infect their insect hosts by directly penetrating the cuticle [276]. Over 20 species of entomopathogenic fungi are known to infect whiteflies [106,326,327]. Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo-Crivelli) Vuillemin; Cordyceps fumosorosea (Wize) Kepler, B. Shrestha and Spatafora (formerly known as Isaria fumosorosea (Wize) or Paecilomyces fumosoroseus (Wize) A.H.S. Brown and G. Smith); and Lecanicillium lecanii (Zare and Gams) are the most widely investigated entomopathogenic fungi that infect B. tabaci on vegetable crops [41].
At 8 days post-inoculation of B. bassiana, the mean mortality of the fourth instar B. tabaci nymphs on cucumber was 91.8% [328]. Similarly, at 10 days post-inoculation of B. bassiana, the survival rate of nymphal B. tabaci was 4.2%, 9.6%, 13.4%, and 24.3% on cucumber, eggplant, tomato, and cabbage, respectively [329]. Furthermore, multiple applications of C. fumosorosea (reported as P. fumosoroseus) and B. bassiana provided >90% control of B. tabaci nymphs on cucumber, cantaloupe melon, and zucchini squash in small-scale field trials [330]. The isolates of B. bassiana and C. fumosorosea (reported as I. fumosorosea) also resulted in 71%–86% mortality of B. tabaci nymphs on bean leaves under laboratory conditions [331]. A follow-up screenhouse study revealed that the efficacy of B. bassiana and C. fumosorosea (reported as I. fumosorosea) against B. tabaci on common bean plants was improved significantly when mixed with the non-ionic surfactant Silwet® L-77 [332].
The effect of integrating entomopathogenic fungi with chemical insecticides in suppressing B. tabaci populations has also been evaluated. The individual application of the entomopathogenic fungus Lecanicillium muscarium (Petch) Zare and Gams or integrating with the insecticide imidacloprid resulted in high mortality of B. tabaci on tomato, verbena, and cucumber plants under both laboratory and glasshouse conditions [333,334,335]. When C. fumosorosea (reported as P. fumosoroseus) and the insecticide azadirachtin were combined, up to 90% B. tabaci nymphal mortality was obtained, although the combined effects were less than additive effects [336]. Another entomopathogenic fungus, Cordyceps javanica (Frieder. and Bally) Kepler, B. Shrestha and Spatafora (reported as Isaria javanica (Friedrichs and Bally) Samson and Hywel-Jones) isolate caused up to 62.4% nymphal mortality of B. tabaci on bean plants, and an additive interaction was found when C. javanica (reported as I. javanica) was combined with the insecticides buprofezin or spiromesifen [337]. However, antagonism was observed when B. bassiana was integrated with imidacloprid against B. tabaci in cantaloupe melon [338].

7. Future Challenges and Opportunities

Although the aforementioned control measures can impact B. tabaci populations if applied independently, they could be more effective at reducing losses due to B. tabaci infestations when used in combination as part of an IPM program [220,318,336,337]. Different strategies will be imperative for different systems, growing conditions, and geographical areas. Greenhouse growers may take advantage of the enclosed environment by using screens to exclude B. tabaci [152,153] and by using predators [278,280,287,292], parasitoids [296,299,300,301,302,303,304], and entomopathogens [316,332]. Under field conditions, one general approach is to apply: 1) cultural practices to avoid or reduce B. tabaci infestations [139,148]; 2) biologically mild treatments (insecticidal soaps/oils or highly selective insecticides) to suppress B. tabaci populations while preserving beneficial organisms [243]; and 3) broad-spectrum pesticides only when required (based on action thresholds) preferably at the later stages of vegetable crops to minimize detrimental effects on beneficial organisms [217,220].
Vegetable breeding for resistance to both B. tabaci and associated viruses plays an important role in B. tabaci management [180]. New and more tolerant or resistant vegetable varieties have been successfully developed and will become commercially available in the future. Although substantial progress has been made in vegetable breeding for resistance against B. tabaci and associated viruses utilizing genetic engineering technology, the cultivation and acceptance of genetically engineered vegetable crops tend to be deferred for the future considering ethical and legislative issues.
The application of chemical insecticides remains the principal approach to suppress B. tabaci populations on vegetables [41,59]. Nevertheless, owing to the intensive selection pressure associated with the insecticide applications, B. tabaci populations have developed considerable resistance to insecticides from different chemical classes [59]. The chemical control approach has also caused resurgence of B. tabaci, secondary pest outbreaks, and environmental degradation [339]. Furthermore, the introduction of insecticides containing new active ingredients is limited due to costs affiliated with development and registration [340]. Additionally, increasing global warming may exacerbate B. tabaci problems, as it was noted that B. tabaci survived long-term under high temperature stress [341].
Successful biological control has been achieved in suppressing B. tabaci populations. There is a general trend in using two or more natural enemies together [277,283,284] or combining natural enemies with chemical insecticides [333,336,337]. The technologies of identification, mass production, and quality control of predators and parasitoids need to be elevated in the future. Moreover, further advancements in technologies are crucial for mass production, stabilization, formulation to avoid damaging environmental conditions (UV radiation and desiccation), and delivery of entomopathogens. More compatibility testing of natural enemies with each other and/or with chemical insecticides will be imperative to facilitate the incorporation of natural enemies into B. tabaci IPM systems.
Novel technologies provide more opportunities for B. tabaci management. Hyperspectral imaging along with machine-learning-based assessments might allow the rapid and accurate detection of B. tabaci on vegetables [122,126,127,128,129]. Although these systems are currently at a proof-of-concept stage, they promise possibilities for the efficient detection of B. tabaci infestations, especially at low densities. Subsequently, precision application of therapeutic management tactics, including insecticides, may be automated and coupled to monitoring systems, which makes them more practical for large-scale farming systems [342]. The precision management could decrease insecticide inputs, reduce product costs, expose workers less to insecticides, preserve natural enemies, and increase sustainability of pest management programs.
Among the potential novel technologies that can be used as tools for B. tabaci management, the biotechnological tool RNA interference (RNAi) is initiated by the introduction of double-stranded RNA into a cell, which results in the generation of loss-of-function phenotypes via the depletion of the target gene messenger [343,344]. RNAi technology can specifically silence the function of vital genes in insect pests [345,346,347]. RNAi has been well established in B. tabaci through injection [348,349], oral route [350], or by expressing its homologous double stranded RNA in plants [351]. To date, several genes have been targeted in B. tabaci through RNAi, and these studies demonstrated its potential to manage B. tabaci at the laboratory level [352,353,354]. Therefore, further research and investments may be required to move toward the field application.

Author Contributions

G.N.M. conceived the work; Y.L. undertook the literature review and drafted the manuscript; G.N.M. and S.P. acquired funding; G.N.M., S.P., A.M.S. and D.I.S.-I. provided professional inputs. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by United States Department of Agriculture, grant number 58-6080-9-006.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our funding from United States Department of Agriculture. We would also like to thank the editors and four anonymous reviewers for their help in improving the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mound, L.A.; Halsey, S.H. Whitefly of the World; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1978; p. 340. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bink-Moenen, R.M. Whiteflies: Diversity, biosystematics and evolutionary patterns. In Whiteflies: Their Bionomics, Pest Status and Management; Gerling, D., Ed.; Intercept Ltd.: Andover, UK, 1990; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  3. Martin, J.H.; Mound, L.A. An Annotated Check List of the World’s Whiteflies (Insecta: Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae); Magnolia Press: Aukland, New Zealand, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  4. Martin, J.H. Whiteflies of Belize (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Part 1 introduction and account of the subfamily Aleurodicinae Quaintance & Baker. Zootaxa 2004, 681, 1–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nauen, R.; Ghanim, M.; Ishaaya, I. Whitefly special issue organized in two parts. Pest Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 1438–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hodges, G.S.; Evans, G.A. An identification guide to the whiteflies (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) of the Southeastern United States. Fla. Entomol. 2005, 88, 518–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Henneberry, T.J.; Castle, S.J. Bemisia: Pest status, economics, biology, and population dynamics. In Virus Insect Plant Interactions, 1st ed.; Harris, K.F., Smith, O.P., Duffus, J.E., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 247–278. [Google Scholar]
  8. Byrne, D.N.; Bellows, T.S., Jr. Whitefly biology. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1991, 36, 431–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Robertson, J.L.; Stansly, P.A.; Naranjo, S.E. Bemisia: Bionomics and management of a global pest. J. Econ. Entomol. 2014, 107, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Hamon, A.B.; Salguero, V. Bemisia tabaci, Sweetpotato Whitefly, in Florida (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae: Aleyrodinae); Entomology Circular 292; Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services: Tallshassee, FL, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hoelmer, K.A.; Osborne, L.S.; Yokomi, R.K. Foliage disorders in Florida associated with feeding by sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci. Fla. Entomol. 1991, 74, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Schuster, D.J.; Price, J.F.; Kring, J.B.; Everett, P.H. Integrated Management of the Sweetpotato Whitefly on Commercial Tomato; Bradenton GCREC Research Report BRA1989-12; Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  13. Henneberry, T.J.; Faust, R.M. Introduction. In Classical Biological Control of Bemisia Tabaci in the United States, 1st ed.; Gould, J., Hoelmer, K., Goolsby, J., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; Volume 4, pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  14. Schuster, D.J.; Stansly, P.A.; Polston, J.E. Expressions of plant damage by Bemisia. In Bemisia 1995: Taxonomy, Biology, Damage Control and Management; Gerling, D., Mayer, R.T., Eds.; Intercept Ltd.: Andover, UK, 1996; pp. 153–165. [Google Scholar]
  15. Duffus, J.E.; Larsen, R.C.; Liu, H.Y. Lettuce infectious yellows virus—A new type of whitefly transmitted virus. Phytopathology 1986, 76, 97–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Miller, G.L.; Jensen, A.S.; Nakahara, S.; Carlson, R.W.; Miller, D.R.; Stoezel, M.B. The Whitefly Web Page. Systematic Entomology Laboratory World Wide Web Site. 2001. Available online: https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=124357 (accessed on 13 September 2020).
  17. Evans, G. The Whiteflies (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) of the World and Their Host Plants and Natural Enemies. 2007. Available online: http://keys.lucidcentral.org/keys/v3/whitefly/PDF_PwP%20ETC/world-whitefly-catalog-Evans.pdf (accessed on 13 September 2020).
  18. Natwick, E.; Stoddard, C.; Zalom, F.; Trumble, J.; Miyao, G.; Stapleton, J. UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines: Tomato; UC ARN Publication 3470; UC ANR Statewide IPM Program: Davis, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gennadius, P. Disease of tobacco plantations in the Trikonia. The aleurodid of tobacco. Ellenike Ga. 1889, 5, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dinsdale, A.; Cook, L.G.; Riginos, C.; Buckley, Y.M.; De Barro, P. Refined global analysis of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Aleyrodoidea: Aleyrodidae) mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase 1 to identify species level genetic boundaries. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2010, 103, 196–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tay, W.T.; Evans, G.A.; Boykin, L.M.; De Barro, P.J. Will the real Bemisia tabaci please stand up? PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e50550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Brown, J.K.; Frohlich, D.R.; Rosell, R.C. The sweetpotato or silverleaf whiteflies: Biotypes of Bemisia tabaci or a species complex? Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1995, 40, 511–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Perring, T.M. The Bemisia tabaci species complex. Crop Prot. 2001, 20, 725–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Xu, J.; De Barro, P.J.; Liu, S.S. Reproductive incompatibility among genetic groups of Bemisia tabaci supports the proposition that the whitefly is a cryptic species complex. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2010, 100, 359–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bedford, I.D.; Briddon, R.W.; Brown, J.K.; Rosell, R.C.; Markham, P.G. Geminivirus transmission and biological characterisation of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) biotypes from diferent geographic regions. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1994, 125, 311–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Costa, H.S.; Brown, J.K.; Sivasupramaniam, S.; Bird, J.S. Regional distribution, insecticide resistance, and reciprocal crosses between the A and B biotypes of Bemisia tabaci. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 1993, 14, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kontsedalov, S.; Zchori-Fein, E.; Chiel, E.; Gottlieb, Y.; Inbar, M.; Ghanim, M. The presence of Rickettsia is associated with increased susceptibility of Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) to insecticides. Pest Manag. Sci. 2008, 64, 789–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Watanabe, L.F.M.; Bello, V.H.; De Marchi, B.R.; Da Silva, F.B.; Fusco, L.M.; Sartori, M.M.; Pavan, M.A.; Krause-Sakate, R. Performance and competitive displacement of Bemisia tabaci MEAM1 and MED cryptic species on different host plants. Crop Prot. 2019, 124, 104860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Boykin, L.M.; Shatters, R.G., Jr.; Rosell, R.C.; McKenzie, C.L.; Bagnall, R.N.; De Barro, P.; Frohlich, D.R. Global relationships of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) revealed using Bayesian analysis of mitochondrial COI DNA sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2007, 44, 1306–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Hu, J.; Zhang, X.; Jiang, Z.; Zhang, F.; Liu, Y.; Li, Z.; Zhang, Z. New putative cryptic species detection and genetic network analysis of Bemisia tabaci (Hempitera: Aleyrodidae) in China based on mitochondrial COI sequences. Mitochondrial DNA Part A 2017, 29, 474–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. De Barro, P.J.; Liu, S.-S.; Boykin, L.M.; Dinsdale, A.B. Bemisia tabaci: A statement of species status. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2011, 56, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Horowitz, A.R.; Denholm, I.; Gorman, K.; Cenis, J.; Kontsedalov, S.; Ishaaya, I. Biotype Q of Bemisia tabaci identified in Israel. Phytoparasitica 2003, 31, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chu, D.; Wan, F.H.; Zhang, Y.J.; Brown, J.K. Change in the biotype composition of Bemisia tabaci in Shandong Province of China from 2005 to 2008. Environ. Entomol. 2010, 39, 1028–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Boykin, L.M.; De Barro, P.J. A practical guide to identifying members of the Bemisia tabaci species complex: And other morphologically identical species. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2014, 2, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Walker, G.P.; Perring, T.M.; Freeman, T.P. Life history, functional anatomy, feeding and mating behavior. In Bemisia: Bionomics and Management of a Global Pest; Stansly, P.A., Naranjo, S.E., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 109–160. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gill, R.J. The morphology of whiteflies. In Whiteflies: Their Bionomics, Pest Status and Management; Gerling, D., Ed.; Intercept Ltd.: Andover, UK, 1990; pp. 13–46. [Google Scholar]
  37. CABI—Center for Agriculture and Biosciences International. Invasive Species Compendium. Bemisia tabaci (Tobacco Whitefly). 2019. Available online: http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/8927 (accessed on 13 September 2020).
  38. Quaintance, A.L.; Baker, A.C. Classification of the Aleyrodidae Part I; Bureau of Entomology U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1913; pp. 1–93. [Google Scholar]
  39. Simmons, A.M. Settling of crawlers of Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on selected vegetables. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2002, 95, 493–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Gelman, D.B.; Blackburn, M.B.; Hu, J.S.; Gerling, D. The nymphal-adult molt of the silverleaf whitefly (Bemisia argentifolii): Timing, regulation, and progress. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 2002, 51, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Perring, T.M.; Stansly, P.A.; Liu, T.X.; Smith, H.A.; Andreason, S.A. Whiteflies: Biology, ecology, and management. In Sustainable Management of Arthropod Pests of Tomato, 1st ed.; Wakil, W., Brust, G.E., Perring, T.M., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 73–110. [Google Scholar]
  42. Simmons, A.M.; Mahroof, R.M. Response of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) to vapor pressure deficit: Oviposition, immature survival, and body size. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2011, 104, 928–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Wang, K.; Tsai, J.H. Temperature effect on development and reproduction of silverleaf whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1996, 89, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Xie, M.; Wan, F.-H.; Chen, Y.-H.; Wu, G. Effects of temperature on the growth and reproduction characteristics of Bemisia tabaci B-biotype and Trialeurodes vaporariorum. J. Appl. Entomol. 2011, 135, 252–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Guo, J.-Y.; Cong, L.; Wan, F.-H. Multiple generation effects of high temperature on the development and fecundity of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) biotype B. Insect Sci. 2012, 20, 541–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Powell, D.A.; Bellows, T.S., Jr. Adult longevity, fertility and population growth rates for Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) (Hom., Aleyrodidae) on two host plant species. J. Appl. Entomol. 1992, 113, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nava-Camberos, U.; Riley, D.G.; Harris, M.K. Temperature and host plant effects on development, survival, and fecundity of Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Environ. Entomol. 2001, 30, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Muñiz, M.; Nombela, G. Differential variation in development of the B- and Q-biotypes of Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on sweet pepper at constant temperatures. Environ. Entomol. 2001, 30, 720–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Powell, D.A.; Bellows, T.S., Jr. Preimaginal development and survival of Bemisia tabaci on cotton and cucumber. Environ. Entomol. 1992, 21, 359–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Naranjo, S.E.; Castle, S.; De Barro, P.J.; Liu, S.-S. Population dynamics, demography, dispersal and spread of Bemisia tabaci. In Bemisia: Bionomics and Management of a Global Pest; Stansly, P.A., Naranjo, S.E., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 185–226. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kakimoto, K.; Inoue, H.; Yamaguchi, T.; Ueda, S.; Honda, K.-I.; Yano, E. Host plant effect on development and reproduction of Bemisia argentifolii Bellows et Perring (B. tabaci [Gennadius] B-biotype) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2007, 42, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Ghahari, H.; Abd-Rabou, S.; Zahradnik, J.; Ostovan, H. Annotated catalogue of whiteflies (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Aleyrodidae) from Arasbaran, Northwestern Iran. J. Entomol. Nematol. 2013, 1, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cuthbertson, A.G.S.; Vänninen, I. The importance of maintaining protected zone status against Bemisia tabaci. Insects 2015, 6, 432–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Simmons, A.M.; Harrison, H.F.; Ling, K.-S. Forty-nine new host plant species for Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Entomol. Sci. 2008, 11, 385–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bird, J.; Maramorosch, K. Viruses and virus diseases associated with whiteflies. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 1978, 22, 55–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Abd-Rabou, S.; Simmons, A.M. Survey of reproductive host plants of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in Egypt, including new host records. Entomol. News 2010, 121, 456–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. McKenzie, C.L.; Kumar, V.; Palmer, C.L.; Oetting, R.D.; Osborne, L.S. Chemical class rotations for control of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) on poinsettia and their effect on cryptic species population composition. Pest Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 1573–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Oliveira, M.; Henneberry, T.; Anderson, P. History, current status, and collaborative research projects for Bemisia tabaci. Crop Prot. 2001, 20, 709–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Horowitz, A.R.; Ghanim, M.; Roditakis, E.; Nauen, R.; Ishaaya, I. Insecticide resistance and its management in Bemisia tabaci species. J. Pest Sci. 2020, 93, 893–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Da Silva, A.G.; Junior, A.L.B.; Farias, P.R.D.S.; De Souza, B.H.S.; Rodrigues, N.E.L.; Carbonell, S.A.M. Common bean resistance expression to whitefly in winter and rainy seasons in Brazil. Sci. Agric. 2019, 76, 389–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gangwar, R.K.; Charu, G. Lifecycle, distribution, nature of damage and economic importance of whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius). Acta Sci. Agric. 2018, 2, 36–39. [Google Scholar]
  62. Naranjo, S.E.; Ellsworth, P.C.; Chu, C.C.; Henneberry, T.J. Conservation of predatory arthropods in cotton: Role of action thresholds for Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2002, 95, 682–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Abd-Raboou, S.; Ahmed, N. Seasonal incidence of scale insects, whiteflies and psyllids (Hemiptera) of olive and their natural enemies in Egypt. Egypt. Acad. J. Biol. Sci. A Entomol. 2011, 4, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jones, D.R. Plant viruses transmitted by whiteflies. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2003, 109, 195–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hogenhout, S.A.; Ammar, E.-D.; Whitfield, A.E.; Redinbaugh, M.G. Insect vector interactions with persistently transmitted viruses. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2008, 46, 327–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Gilbertson, R.L.; Batuman, O.; Webster, C.G.; Adkins, S. Role of the insect supervectors Bemisia tabaci and Frankliniella occidentalis in the emergence and global spread of plant viruses. Annu. Rev. Virol. 2015, 2, 67–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Polston, J.E.; De Barro, P.; Boykin, L.M. Transmission specificities of plant viruses with the newly identified species of the Bemisia tabaci species complex. Pest Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 1547–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Duffus, J.E. Whitefly transmission of plant viruses. In Current Topics in Vector Research; Harris, K., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1986; Volume 4, pp. 73–91. [Google Scholar]
  69. Picó, B.; Díez, M.J.; Nuez, F. Viral diseases causing the greatest economic losses to the tomato crop. II. The Tomato yellow leaf curl virus—A review. Sci. Hortic. 1996, 67, 151–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mccollum, T.; Stoffella, P.; Powell, C.; Cantliffe, D.; Hanif-Khan, S. Effects of silverleaf whitefly feeding on tomato fruit ripening. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2004, 31, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Maynard, D.N.; Cantliffe, D.J. Squash Silverleaf and Tomato Irregular Ripening: New Vegetable Disorders in Florida; IFAS VC-37; Florida Cooperative Extension Service: Gainesville, FL, USA, 1989; p. 4. [Google Scholar]
  72. Schuster, D.; Mueller, T.; Kring, J.; Price, J. Relationship of the sweetpotato whitefly to a new tomato fruit disorder in Florida. HortScience 1990, 25, 1618–1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Yokomi, R.K.; Hoelmer, K.A.; Osborne, L.S. Relationship between the sweetpotato whitefly and the squash silverleaf disorder. Phytopathology 1990, 80, 895–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Summers, C.G.; Estrada, D. Chlorotic streak of bell pepper: A new toxicogenic disorder induced by feeding of silverleaf whitefly, Bemisia argentifolli. Plant Dis. 1996, 80, 822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Schuster, D.J. Relationship of silverleaf whitefly population density to severity of irregular ripening of tomato. HortScience 2001, 36, 1089–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Stansly, P.A.; Natwick, E.T. Integrated systems for managing Bemisia tabaci in protected and open field agriculture. In Bemisia: Bionomics and Management of a Global Pest; Stansly, P.A., Naranjo, S.E., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 467–497. [Google Scholar]
  77. Simmons, A.M.; Elsey, K.D. Overwintering and cold tolerance of Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in coastal South Carolina. J. Entomol. Sci. 1995, 30, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Quaintance, A.L. Contributions toward a monograph of the American Aleurodidae. Tech. Ser. Div. Ent. U.S.D.A. 1900, 8, 9–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Price, J.F.; Schuster, D.; Short, D. Managing sweetpotato whitefly. Greenh. Grow. 1986, 55–57. [Google Scholar]
  80. Gonzalez, R.; Goldman, G.; Natwick, E.; Rosenberg, H.; Grieshop, J.; Sutter, S.; Funakoshi, T.; Davila-Garcia, S. Whitefly invasion in Imperial Valley costs growers, workers millions in losses. Calif. Agric. 1992, 46, 7–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Perring, T.; Cooper, A.; Kazmer, D.J.; Shields, C.; Shields, J. New strain of sweetpotato whitefly invades California vegetables. Calif. Agric. 1991, 45, 10–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Perring, T.M.; Cooper, A.; Kazmer, D.J. Identification of the poinsettia strain of Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on broccoli by electrophoresis. J. Econ. Entomol. 1992, 85, 1278–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Perring, T.M.; Cooper, A.D.; Russell, R.J.; Farrar, C.A.; Bellows, T.S., Jr. Identification of a whitefly species by genomic and behavioral studies. Science 1993, 259, 74–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Cohen, S.; Harpaz, I. Periodic, rather than continual acquisition of a new tomato virus by its vector, the tobacco whitefly (Bemisia tabaci gennadius). Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1964, 7, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Cohen, S.; Nitzany, F.E. Transmission and host range of the Tomato yellow leaf curl virus. Phtyopathology 1966, 56, 1127–1131. [Google Scholar]
  86. Czosnek, H.; Morin, S.; Friedmann, M.; Zeidan, V.; Ghanim, M. Tomato yellow leaf curl virus: A disease sexually transmitted by whiteflies. In Virus Insect Plant Interactions; Harris, K.F., Smith, O.P., Duffus, J.E., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  87. Czosnek, H. Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (geminiviridae). In Encyclopedia of Virology, 3rd ed.; Mahy, B.W.J., van Regenmortel, M.H.V., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; Volume 5, pp. 138–145. [Google Scholar]
  88. Isakeit, T.; Idris, A.M.; Sunter, G.; Black, M.C.; Brown, J.K. Tomato yellow leaf curl virus in tomato in Texas, originating from transplant facilities. Plant Dis. 2007, 91, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Moriones, E.; Navas-Castillo, J. Tomato yellow leaf curl disease epidemics. In Bemisia: Bionomics and Management of a Global Pest; Stansly, P.A., Naranjo, S.E., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 259–282. [Google Scholar]
  90. Polston, J.E.; McGovern, R.J.; Brown, L.G. Introduction of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus in Florida and implications for the spread of this and other geminiviruses of tomato. Plant Dis. 1999, 83, 984–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Smith, H.A.; Stansly, P.A.; Seal, D.R.; McAvoy, E.; Polston, J.E.; Gilreath, P.R.; Schuster, D.J. Management of Whiteflies, Whitefly-Transmitted Plant Virus, and Insecticide Resistance for Tomato Production in Southern Florida; ENY-735, IFAS Extension; University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  92. McAuslane, H.J.; Smith, H.A. Sweetpotato Whitefly B Biotype, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Insecta: Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae); EENY-129, IFAS Extension; University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  93. Schuster, D.J. Newsletter of work group on Bemisia tabaci. Newsletter 1992, 5, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  94. Little, E.L. 2016 Georgia Plant Disease Loss Estimates; Annual Publication 102-9; University of Georgia Cooperative Extension: Athens, GA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  95. Little, E.L. 2017 Georgia Plant Disease Loss Estimates; Annual Publication 102-10; University of Georgia Cooperative Extension: Athens, GA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  96. Norman, J.W., Jr.; Riley, D.G.; Stansly, P.A.; Ellsworth, P.C.; Toscano, N.C. Management of Silverleaf Whitefly: A Comprehensive Manual on the Biology, Economic Impact and Control Tactics. Available online: https://ucanr.edu/sites/CottonIPM/files/181441.pdf (accessed on 14 September 2020).
  97. McLeod, P. Identification, Biology and Management of Insects Attacking Vegetables in Arkansas; Sirena Press: Santa Cruz, Bolivia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  98. Bessin, R. Silverleaf Whitefly on Tomato; Entfact-320; Cooperative Extension Service; University of Kentucky: Lexington, KY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  99. Crop Profile for Tomatoes in Tennessee. 2014. Available online: https://ipmdata.ipmcenters.org/documents/cropprofiles/TNtomato2014.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2020).
  100. Attaway, D. Cucurbit Leaf Crumple Virus Found in South Carolina Cucurbit Crops. 2019. Available online: https://newsstand.clemson.edu/cucurbit-leaf-crumple-virus-found-in-south-carolina-cucurbit-crops/ (accessed on 11 September 2020).
  101. Lynch, R.E.; Simmons, A.M. Distribution of immatures and monitoring of adult sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae), in peanut, Arachis hypogaea. Environ. Entomol. 1993, 22, 375–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sparks, A.; Roberts, P.; Barman, A.; Riley, D.; Toews, M. Cross-Commodity Management of Silverleaf Whitefly in Georgia; Circular 1141; University of Georgia Cooperative Extension: Athens, GA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  103. Dutta, B.; Myers, B.; Coolong, T.; Srinivasan, B.; Sparks, A. Whitefly-transmitted Plant Viruses in Southern Georgia; Bulletin 1507; University of Georgia Cooperative Extension: Athens, GA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  104. Bogran, C.E.; Heinz, K.M. Whiteflies; E-432; Texas A&M Agrilife Extension Service; Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  105. Bessin, R. Silverleaf Whitefly on Squash; Entfact-319; Cooperative Extension Service; University of Kentucky: Lexington, KY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  106. Lacey, L.A.; Fransen, J.J.; Carruthers, R.I. Global distribution of naturally occurring fungi of Bemisia, their biologies and use as biological control agents. In Bemisia: 1995 Taxonomy, Biology, Damage, Control and Management; Gerling, D., Mayer, R.T., Eds.; Intercept Ltd.: Andover, UK, 1996; pp. 401–433. [Google Scholar]
  107. Diehl, J.W.; Ellsworth, P.C.; Naranjo, S.E. Evaluation of a leaf-turn method for sampling whiteflies in cotton. Cotton Coll. Agric. Rep. 1995, 241–246. Available online: https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/210317 (accessed on 26 February 2021).
  108. Pedigo, L.P.; Rice, M.E. Entomology and Pest Management, 5th ed.; Pearson: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  109. Arnó, J.; Albajes, R.; Gabarra, R. Within-plant distribution and sampling of single and mixed infestations of Bemisia tabaci and Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in winter tomato crops. J. Econ. Entomol. 2006, 99, 331–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Gusmao, M.R.; Picanco, M.C.; Zanuncio, J.C.; Silva, D.J.H.; Barrigossi, J.A.F. Standardized sampling plan for Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in outdoor tomatoes. Sci. Hortic. 2005, 103, 403–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Gusmão, M.R.; Picanço, M.C.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Galvan, T.L.; Pereira, E.J.G. Economic injury level and sequential sampling plan for Bemisia tabaci in outdoor tomato. J. Appl. Entomol. 2006, 130, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Song, J.H.; Lee, K.J.; Yang, Y.T.; Lee, S.C. Sampling plan for Bemisia tabaci adults by using yellow-color sticky traps in tomato greenhouses. Korean J. Appl. Entomol. 2014, 53, 375–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Sun, Y.; Yuan, Y.D.; Yang, Y.Z.; Jie, L.; Zou, L.L.; Wang, D.S. Distribution of Bemisia tabaci in summer tomato plants. Acta Agric. Shanghai 2010, 26, 92–95. [Google Scholar]
  114. De Moura, M.F.; Picanco, M.C.; da Silva, E.M.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Pereira, J.L. Sampling plan for B-biotype of Bemisia tabaci in cucumber crop. Pesqui. Agro. Brasil. 2003, 38, 1357–1363. [Google Scholar]
  115. Lima, C.H.; Sarmento, R.A.; Pereira, P.S.; Galdino, T.V.; Santos, F.A.; Silva, J.; Picanço, M.C. Feasible sampling plan for Bemisia tabaci control decision-making in watermelon fields. Pest Manag. Sci. 2017, 73, 2345–2352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Shen, B.B.; Ren, S.X.; Musa, P.D.; Zhou, J.H. The spatial distribution pattern of Bemisia tabaci adults. Chin. Bull. Entomol. 2005, 42, 544–546. [Google Scholar]
  117. Lima, C.H.O.; Sarmento, R.A.; Pereira, P.S.; Ribeiro, A.V.; Souza, D.J.; Picanço, M.C. Economic injury levels and sequential sampling plans for control decision-making systems of Bemisia tabaci biotype B adults in watermelon crops. Pest Manag. Sci. 2018, 75, 998–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Thiago, L.; Costa, R.A.; Sarmento, T.A.; Araújo, P.S.; Pereira, R.S.; Silva, M.C.; Lopes, M.C.; Picanço, M.C. Economic injury levels and sequential sampling plans for Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) biotype B on open-field melon crops. Crop Prot. 2019, 125, 104887. [Google Scholar]
  119. De Macêdo, R.V.B.T.; Sarmento, R.A.; Pereira, P.S.; Lima, C.H.O.; De Deus, T.L.L.B.; Ribeiro, A.V.; Picanço, M.C. Sampling plan for Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in melon crops. Fla. Entomol. 2019, 102, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Pereira, M.F.A.; Boiça, A.L., Jr.; Barbosa, J.C. Sequential sampling (presence-absence) for Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) biotype B (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Neotrop. Entomol. 2004, 33, 499–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Pereira, M.F.A.; Boiça, A.L., Jr.; Barbosa, J.C. Spatial distribution of Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) biotype B (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) on bean crop (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Neotrop. Entomol. 2004, 33, 493–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Chung, B.-K.; Xia, C.; Song, Y.-H.; Lee, J.-M.; Li, Y.; Kim, H.; Chon, T.-S. Sampling of Bemisia tabaci adults using a pre-programmed autonomous pest control robot. J. Asia-Pac. Entomol. 2014, 17, 737–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Ekbom, B.S.; Rumei, X. Sampling and spatial patterns of whiteflies. In Whiteflies: Their Bionomics, Pest Status and Management; Gerling, D., Ed.; Intercept Ltd.: Andover, UK, 1996; pp. 107–121. [Google Scholar]
  124. Böckmann, E.; Hommes, M.; Meyhöfer, R. Yellow traps reloaded: What is the benefit for decision making in practice? J. Pest Sci. 2015, 88, 439–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Pinto-Zevallos, D.M.; Vänninen, I. Yellow sticky traps for decision-making in whitefly management: What has been achieved? Crop Prot. 2013, 47, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Carruthers, R.I. Sampling. In Sweetpotato Whitefly: 1993 Supplement to the 5-Year National Research and Action Plan, Tempe, Arizona, USA, January 18–21, 1993; Henneberry, T.J., Ed.; Forgotten Books: London, UK, 1993; p. 11, No. 112. [Google Scholar]
  127. Bauch, C.; Rath, T. Prototype of a vision based system for measurements of white fly infestation. Acta Hortic. 2005, 2, 773–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Wang, Z.; Wang, K.; Zhang, S.; Liu, Z.; Mu, C. Whiteflies counting with K-means clustering and ellipse fitting. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2014, 30, 105–112. [Google Scholar]
  129. Yang, X.; Liu, M.; Xu, J.; Zhao, L.; Wei, S.; Li, W.; Chen, M.; Li, M. Image segmentation and recognition algorithm of greenhouse whitefly and thrip adults for automatic monitoring device. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2018, 34, 164–170. [Google Scholar]
  130. Dent, D. Insect Pest Management, 1st ed.; CABI: Iver, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  131. Athar, H.-U.-R.; Bhatti, A.R.; Bashir, N.; Zafar, Z.U.; Abida; Farooq, A. Modulating infestation rate of white fly (Bemicia tabaci) on okra (Hibiscus esculentus L.) by nitrogen application. Acta Physiol. Plant 2010, 33, 843–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Abd-Rabou, S.; Simmons, A.M. Effect of three irrigation methods on incidences of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) and some whitefly-transmitted viruses in four vegetable crops. Trends Entomol. 2012, 8, 21–26. [Google Scholar]
  133. Idriss, M.H.; El-Meniawi, F.A.; Rawash, I.A.; Soliman, A.M. Effects of different fertilization levels of tomato plants on population density and biometrics of the cotton whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Aleyrodidae) under greenhouse conditions. Middle East J. Appl. Sci. 2015, 5, 759–786. [Google Scholar]
  134. Žanić, K.; Dumičić, G.; Urlić, B.; Vuletin Selak, G.; Goreta Ban, S. Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) population density and pupal size are dependent on rootstock and nitrogen in hydroponic tomato crop. Agric. For. Entomol. 2017, 19, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Togni, P.H.B.; Marouelli, W.A.; Inoue-Nagata, A.K.; Pires, C.S.S.; Sujii, E.R. Integrated cultural practices for whitefly management in organic tomato. J. Appl. Entomol. 2018, 142, 998–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Žanić, K.; Dumičić, G.; Škaljac, M.; Goreta Ban, S.; Urlić, B. The effects of nitrogen rate and the ratio of NO3–:NH4+ on Bemisia tabaci populations in hydroponic tomato crops. Crop Prot. 2011, 30, 228–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Simmons, A.M.; Abd-Rabou, S. Population of the sweetpotato whitefly in response to different rates of three sulfur-containing fertilizers on ten vegetable crops. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2008, 15, 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Ellsworth, P.C.; Martinez-Carrillo, J.L. IPM for Bemisia tabaci: A case study from North America. Crop Prot. 2001, 20, 853–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Hilje, L.; Costa, H.S.; Stansly, P.A. Cultural practices for managing Bemisia tabaci and associated viral diseases. Crop Prot. 2001, 20, 801–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Mohamed, M. Impact of planting dates, spaces and varieties on infestation of cucumber plants with whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Genn.). J. Basic Appl. Zool. 2012, 65, 17–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Ahsan, M.I.; Hossain, M.S.; Parvin, S.; Karim, Z. Effect of varieties and planting dates on the incidence of aphid and white fly attack on tomato. Int. J. Sustain. Agric. Technol. 2005, 1, 26–30. [Google Scholar]
  142. Abd-Rabou, S.; Simmons, A.M. Some cultural strategies to help manage Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) and whitefly-transmitted viruses in vegetable crops. Afr. Entomol. 2012, 20, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Simmons, A.M.; Kousik, C.S.; Levi, A. Combining reflective mulch and host plant resistance for sweetpotato whitefly (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) management in watermelon. Crop Prot. 2010, 29, 898–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Rajasri, M.; Vijaya lakshmi, K.; Prasada Rao, R.D.V.J.; Loka Reddy, K. Effect of different mulches on the incidence of Tomato leaf curl virus and its vector whitefly Bemisia tabaci in tomato. Acta Hort. 2011, 914, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Hilje, L.; Stansly, P.A. Living ground covers for management of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) and Tomato yellow mottle virus (ToYMoV) in Costa Rica. Crop Prot. 2008, 27, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Nyoike, T.W.; Liburd, O.E. Effect of living (buckwheat) and UV reflective mulches with and without imidacloprid on whiteflies, aphids and marketable yields of zucchini squash. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2009, 56, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Nyoike, T.W.; Liburd, O.E.; Webb, S.E. Suppression of whiteflies, Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) and incidence of cucurbit leaf crumple virus, a whitefly-transmitted virus of zucchini squash new to Florida, with mulches and imidacloprid. Fla. Entomol. 2008, 91, 460–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Manandhar, R.; Cerruti, R.; Hooks, R.; Wright, M.G. Influence of cover crop and intercrop systems on Bemisia argentifolli (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) infestation and associated Squash silverleaf disorder in zucchini. Environ. Entomol. 2009, 38, 442–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Smith, H.A.; Koenig, R.L.; McAuslane, H.J.; McSorley, R. Effect of silver reflective mulch and a summer squash trap crop on densities of immature Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on organic bean. J. Econ. Entomol. 2000, 93, 726–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Riley, D.G.; Srinivasan, R. Integrated management of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus and its whitefly vector in tomato. J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 112, 1526–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Polston, J.E.; Lapidot, M. Management of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus: US and Israel perspectives. In Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus Disease; Czosnek, H., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 251–262. [Google Scholar]
  152. Hanafi, A.; Bouharroud, R.; Amouat, S.; Miftah, S. Efficiency of insect nets in excluding whiteflies and their impact on some natural biological control agents. Acta Hortic. 2007, 747, 383–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Teitel, M.; Barak, M.; Berlinger, M.J.; Lebiush-Mordechai, S. Insect proof screens: Their effect on roof ventilation and insect penetration. Acta Hortic. 1999, 507, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Tanaka, N.; Matsuda, Y.; Kato, E.; Kokabe, K.; Furukawa, T.; Nonomura, T.; Honda, K.-I.; Kusakari, S.-I.; Imura, T.; Kimbara, J.; et al. An electric dipolar screen with oppositely polarized insulators for excluding whiteflies from greenhouses. Crop Prot. 2008, 27, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Kakutani, K.; Matsuda, Y.; Nonomura, T.; Toyoda, H.; Kimbara, J.; Osamura, K.; Kusakari, S. Practical application of an electric field screen to an exclusion of flying insect pests and airborne fungal conidia from greenhouses with a good air penetration. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 4, p51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  156. Nonomura, T.; Matsuda, Y.; Kakutani, K.; Kimbara, J.; Osamura, K.; Kusakari, S.-I.; Toyoda, H. An electric field strongly deters whiteflies from entering window-open greenhouses in an electrostatic insect exclusion strategy. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2012, 134, 661–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Nonomura, T.; Matsuda, Y.; Kakutani, K.; Takikawa, Y.; Kimbara, J.; Osamura, K.; Kusakari, S.-I.; Toyoda, H. Prevention of whitefly entry from a greenhouse entrance by furnishing an airflow-oriented pre-entrance room guarded with electric field screens. J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 6, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  158. Takikawa, Y.; Matsuda, Y.; Nonomura, T.; Kakutani, K.; Okada, K.; Morikawa, S.; Shibao, M.; Kusakari, S.-I.; Toyoda, H. An electrostatic nursery shelter for raising pest and pathogen free tomato seedlings in an open-window greenhouse environment. J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 8, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. Takikawa, Y.; Kakutani, K.; Matsuda, Y.; Nonomura, T.; Kusakari, S.-I.; Toyoda, H. A promising physical pest-control system demonstrated in a greenhouse equipped with simple electrostatic devices that excluded all insect pests: A review. J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  160. Antignus, Y.; Mor, N.; Ben Joseph, R.; Lapidot, M.; Cohen, S. Ultraviolet-absorbing plastic sheets protect crops from insect pests and from virus diseases vectored by insects. Environ. Entomol. 1996, 25, 919–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Antignus, Y. Manipulation of wavelength-dependent behaviour of insects: An IPM tool to impede insects and restrict epidemics of insect-borne viruses. Virus Res. 2000, 71, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Antignus, Y.; Nestel, D.; Cohen, S.; Lapidot, M. Ultraviolet-deficient greenhouse environment affects whitefly attraction and flight-behavior. Environ. Entomol. 2001, 30, 394–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Kumar, P.; Poehling, H.-M. Uv-blocking plastic films and nets influence vectors and virus transmission on greenhouse tomatoes in the humid tropics. Environ. Entomol. 2006, 35, 1069–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. VanderMeer, J.H. The Ecology of Intercropping; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  165. Schuster, D.J. Preference of Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) for selected vegetable hosts. J. Agric. Urban Entomol. 2003, 20, 59–67. [Google Scholar]
  166. Choi, Y.; Seo, J.; Whang, I.; Kim, G.; Choi, B.; Jeong, T. Effects of eggplant as a trap plant attracting Bemisia tabaci Genn. (He-miptera: Aleyrodidae) adults available on tomato greenhouses. Korean J. Appl. Entomol. 2015, 54, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Choi, Y.-S.; Hwang, I.-S.; Lee, G.-J.; Kim, G.-J. Control of Bemisia tabaci Genn. (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) adults on tomato plants using trap plants with systemic insecticide. Korean J. Appl. Entomol. 2016, 55, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Rajasri, M.; Lakshmi, K.V.; Reddy, K.L. Management of whitefly transmitted Tomato leaf curl virus using guard crops in tomato. Indian J. Plant Prot. 2009, 37, 101–103. [Google Scholar]
  169. Musa, A.-A. Incidence, economic importance, and control of Tomato yellow leaf curl in Jordan. Plant Dis. 1982, 66, 561–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Smith, H.A.; McSorley, R. Potential of field corn as a barrier crop and eggplant as a trap crop for management of Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on common bean in North Florida. Fla. Entomol. 2000, 83, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Togni, P.H.B.; Laumann, R.A.; Medeiros, M.A.; Sujii, E.R. Odour masking of tomato volatiles by coriander volatiles in host plant selection of Bemisia tabaci biotype b. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2010, 136, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Schuster, D.J. Squash as a trap crop to protect tomato from whitefly-vectored Tomato yellow leaf curl. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2004, 50, 281–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. El-Serwiy, S.A.; Ali, A.A.; Razoki, I.A. Effect of intercropping of some host plants with tomato on population density of tobacco whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Genn.), and the incidence of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) in plastic houses. J. Agric. Water Resour. Res. 1987, 6, 79–81. [Google Scholar]
  174. Fargalla, F.; Taha, A.; Fahim, M. Epidemiology of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus in relation to intercropping and insecticidal spray effects on the Bemisia tabaci under field conditions. Acta Hortic. 2011, 914, 331–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Verma, A.K.; Mitra, P.; Saha, A.K.; Ghatak, S.S.; Bajpai, A.K. Effect of trap crops on the population of the whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) and the diseases transmitted by it. Bull. Indian Aca. Seri. 2011, 15, 99–106. [Google Scholar]
  176. Afifi, F.M.L.; Haydar, M.F.; Omar, H.I.H. Effect of different intercropping systems on tomato infestation with major insect pests; Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), Myzus persicae Sulzer (Homoptera: Aphididae) and Phthorimaea operculella Zeller (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Bull. Fac. Agric. 1990, 41, 885–900. [Google Scholar]
  177. Asawalam, E.F.; Chukwu, E.U. The effect of intercropping okra with ginger on the population of flea beetle (Podagrica sjostedti Jacoby Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Genn Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) and the yield of okra in Umudike Abia State, Nigeria. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2012, 3, 300–304. [Google Scholar]
  178. Sharma, A.; Neupane, K.R.; Regmi, R.; Neupane, R.C. Effect of intercropping on the incidence of jassid (Amrasca biguttula biguttula Ish.) and whitefly (Bemesia tabaci Guen.) in okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L. Moench). J. Agric. Nat. Resour. 2018, 1, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Yang, Z.; Ma, C.; Wang, X.; Long, H.; Liu, X.; Yang, X. Preference of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) to four vegetable hosts. Acta Entomol. Sin. 2004, 47, 612–627. [Google Scholar]
  180. Berlinger, M. Host plant resistance to Bemisia tabaci. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1986, 17, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Nombela, G.; Beitia, F.; Muñiz, M. Variation in tomato host response to Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in relation to acyl sugar content and presence of the nematode and potato aphid resistance gene Mi. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2000, 90, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  182. Nombela, G.; Beitia, F.J.; Muniz, M. A differential interaction study of Bemisia tabaci Q-biotype on commercial tomato varieties with or without the Mi resistance gene, and comparative host responses with the B-biotype. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2001, 98, 339–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  183. Li, Q.; Xie, Q.-G.; Smith-Becker, J.; Navarre, D.A.; Kaloshian, I. Mi-1-mediated aphid resistance involves salicylic acid and mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling cascades. Int. Soc. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2006, 19, 655–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  184. Nombela, G.; Williamson, V.M.; Muñiz, M. The root-knot nematode resistance gene Mi-1.2 of tomato is responsible for resistance against the whitefly Bemisia tabaci. Int. Soc. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2003, 16, 645–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  185. Setiawati, W.; Udiarto, B.K.; Gunaeni, N. Preference and infestation pattern of Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) on some tomato varieties and its effect on Gemini virus infestation. Indones. J. Agric. 2009, 2, 57–64. [Google Scholar]
  186. Snyder, J.C.; Simmons, A.M.; Thacker, R.R. Attractancy and ovipositional response of adult Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) to type IV trichome density on leaves of Lycopersicon hirsutum grown in three day-length regimes. J. Entomol. Sci. 1998, 33, 270–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Heinz, K.M.; Zalom, F.G. Variation in trichome-based resistance to Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) oviposition on tomato. J. Econ. Èntomol. 1995, 88, 1494–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Toscano, L.C.; Boiça, A.L., Jr.; Maruyama, W.I. Nonpreference of whitefly for oviposition in tomato genotypes. Sci. Agric. 2002, 59, 677–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Smith, H.A.; Nagle, C.A.; MacVean, C.M.; Vallad, G.E.; Van Santen, E.; Hutton, S.F. Comparing host plant resistance, repellent mulches, and at-plant insecticides for management of Bemisia tabaci MEAM1 (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) and Tomato yellow leaf curl virus. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 112, 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Rakha, M.; Hanson, P.; Ramasamy, S. Identification of resistance to Bemisia tabaci Genn. in closely related wild relatives of cultivated tomato based on trichome type analysis and choice and no-choice assays. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2017, 64, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  191. Bleeker, P.M.; Mirabella, R.; Diergaarde, P.J.; VanDoorn, A.; Tissier, A.; Kant, M.R.; Prins, M.; De Vos, M.; Haring, M.A.; Schuurink, R.C. Improved herbivore resistance in cultivated tomato with the sesquiterpene biosynthetic pathway from a wild relative. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 20124–20129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  192. Firdaus, S.; Van Heusden, A.W.; Hidayati, N.; Supena, E.D.J.; Visser, R.G.F.; Vosman, B. Resistance to Bemisia tabaci in tomato wild relatives. Euphytica 2012, 187, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  193. Muigai, S.G.; Bassett, M.J.; Schuster, D.J.; Scott, J.W. Greenhouse and field screening of wild Lycopersicon germplasm for resistance to the whitefly Bemisia argentifolii. Phytoparasitica 2003, 31, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Simmons, A.M.; Jarret, R.L.; Cantrell, C.L.; Levi, A. Citrullus ecirrhosus: Wild source of resistance against Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) for cultivated watermelon. J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 112, 2425–2432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Chhabra, K.K.; Kooner, B.S. Response of some promising mungbean genotypes towards whitefly, jassids and Mungbean yellow mosaic virus. J. Insect Sci. 1993, 6, 215–218. [Google Scholar]
  196. Khaliq, N.; Koul, V.; Shankar, U.; Ganai, S.A.; Sharma, S.; Norboo, T. Screening of mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) varieties against whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Genn.) and mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV). Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  197. Jeevanandham, N.; Marimuthu, M.; Natesan, S.; Gandhi, K.; Appachi, S. Plant resistance in Chillies capsicum spp. against whitefly, Bemisia tabaci under field and greenhouse condition. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2018, 6, 1904–1914. [Google Scholar]
  198. Jeevanandham, N.; Marimuthu, M.; Natesan, S.; Mukkaiyah, S.; Appachi, S. Levels of plant resistance in chillies Capsicum spp against whitefly, Bemisia tabaci. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 1419–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Yadav, R.K.; Jayanthi, P.K.; Kumar, M.; Kumar, P.S.; Rao, V.K.; Reddy, K.M. Screening chilli genotypes for whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Genn.) resistance: A vector for chilli leaf curl virus. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2020, 8, 971–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Pantoja, K.F.C.; Rocha, K.C.G.; Melo, A.M.T.; Marubayashi, J.M.; Baldin, E.L.L.; Bentivenha, J.P.F.; Gioria, R.; Kobori, R.F.; Pavan, M.A.; Krause-Sakate, R. Identification of Capsicum accessions tolerant to Tomato severe rugose virus and resistant to Bemisia tabaci Middle East-Asia Minor 1 (MEAM1). Trop. Plant Pathol. 2018, 43, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Jackson, D.M.; Farnham, M.W.; Simmons, A.M.; Van Giessen, W.A.; Elsey, K.D. Effects of planting pattern of collards on resistance to whiteflies (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) and on parasitoid abundance. J. Econ. Entomol. 2000, 93, 1227–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Domingos, G.M.; Baldin, E.L.L.; Canassa, V.F.; Silva, I.F.; Lourenção, A.L. Resistance of collard green genotypes to Bemisia tabaci biotype B: Characterization of antixenosis. Neotrop. Entomol. 2018, 47, 560568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Dutta, B.; (University of Georgia, Tifton, GA, USA). Personal communication, 2020.
  204. Brunetti, A.; Tavazza, M.; Noris, E.; Caciagli, P.; Ancora, G.; Crespi, S.; Accotto, G.P. High expression of truncated viral rep protein confers resistance to Tomato yellow leaf curl virus in transgenic tomato plants. Int. Soc. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 1997, 10, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  205. Kunik, T.; Salomon, R.; Zamir, D.; Navot, N.; Zeidan, M.; Michelson, I.; Gafni, Y.; Czosnek, H. Transgenic tomato plants expressing the Tomato yellow leaf curl virus capsid protein are resistant to the virus. Bio/Technology 1994, 12, 500–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Kunik, T.; Gafni, Y.; Citovsky, V.; Czosnek, H. Transgenic tomato plants expressing Tylcv capsid protein are resistant to the virus: The role of the nuclear localization signal (Nls) in the resistance. Acta Hortic. 1997, 447, 387–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Tashkandi, M.; Ali, Z.; Aljedaani, F.; Shami, A.; Mahfouz, M.M. Engineering resistance against Tomato yellow leaf curl virus via the CRISPR/Cas9 system in tomato. Plant Signal. Behav. 2018, 13, e1525996-7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  208. Yang, Y.; Sherwood, T.A.; Patte, C.P.; Hiebert, E.; Polston, J.E. Use of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) rep gene sequences to engineer TYLCV resistance in tomato. Phytopathology 2004, 94, 490–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  209. Fuentes, A.; Ramos, P.L.; Fiallo, E.; Callard, D.; Sánchez, Y.; Peral, R.; Rodríguez, R.; Pujol, M.; Fiallo-Olivé, E. Intron–hairpin RNA derived from replication associated protein C1 gene confers immunity to Tomato yellow leaf curl virus infection in transgenic tomato plants. Transgenic Res. 2006, 15, 291–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  210. Van Vu, T.; Choudhury, N.R.; Mukherjee, S.K. Transgenic tomato plants expressing artificial microRNAs for silencing the pre-coat and coat proteins of a begomovirus, Tomato leaf curl New Delhi virus, show tolerance to virus infection. Virus Res. 2013, 172, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Bonfim, K.; Faria, J.C.; Nogueira, E.O.P.L.; Mendes, É.A.; Aragão, F.J.L. RNAi-mediated resistance to Bean golden mosaic virus in genetically engineered common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Int. Soc. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2007, 20, 717–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  212. Aragão, F.; Ribeiro, S.; Barros, L.; Brasileiro, A.; Maxwell, D.; Rech, E.; Faria, J. Transgenic beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) engineered to express viral antisense RNAs show delayed and attenuated symptoms to bean golden mosaic geminivirus. Mol. Breed. 1998, 4, 491–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. De Paula, N.T.; De Faria, J.C.; Aragão, F.J. Reduction of viral load in whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Gen.) feeding on RNAi-mediated bean golden mosaic virus resistant transgenic bean plants. Virus Res. 2015, 210, 245–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Ibrahim, A.B.; Monteiro, T.R.; Cabral, G.B.; Aragão, F.J.L. RNAi-mediated resistance to whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) in genetically engineered lettuce (Lactuca sativa). Transgenic Res. 2017, 26, 613–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  215. Yamamoto, I. Nicotine to nicotinoids: 1962 to 1997. In Nicotinoid Insecticides and the Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor; Yamamoto, I., Casida, J.E., Eds.; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 1999; pp. 3–27. [Google Scholar]
  216. Mullins, J.W. Imidacloprid: A new nitroguanidine insecticide. Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. 1993, 524, 183–198. [Google Scholar]
  217. Stansly, P.A. Seasonal abundance of silverleaf whitefly in southwest Florida vegetable fields. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 1996, 108, 234–242. [Google Scholar]
  218. Stansly, P.A.; Liu, T.X.; Vavrina, C.V. Response of Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in bioassay, greenhouse tomato transplants and field plants of tomato and eggplant. J. Econ. Entomol. 1998, 91, 686–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Riley, D.G. Insecticide control of sweetpotato whitefly in south Texas. Subtrop. Plant Sci. 1994, 46, 45–49. [Google Scholar]
  220. Liu, T.X.; Meister, C.W. Managing Bemisia argentifolii on spring melons with insect growth regulators, entomopathogens and imidacloprid in south Texas. Subtrop. Plant Sci. 2001, 53, 44–48. [Google Scholar]
  221. Liu, T.-X.; Stansly, P.A. Effects of pyriproxyfen on three species of Encarsia (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), endoparasitoids of Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 1997, 90, 404–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  222. Ishaaya, I.; Horowitz, A.R. Novel phenoxy juvenile hormone analog (Pyriproxyfen) suppresses embryogenesis and adult emergence of sweetpotato whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 1992, 85, 2113–2117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Dennehy, T.J.; Williams, L., III. Management of resistance in Bemisia in Arizona cotton. Pestic. Sci. 1997, 51, 398–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Bretschneider, T.; Fischer, R.; Nauen, R. Inhibitors of lipid synthesis (acetyl-CoA-carboxylase inhibitors). In Modern Crop Pro-tection Compounds; Krämer, W., Schirmer, U., Eds.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2007; Volume 1, Chapter 28; pp. 909–925. [Google Scholar]
  225. Bretschneider, T.; Benet-Buchholz, J.; Fischer, R.; Nauen, R. Spirodiclofen and Spiromesifen—novel acaricidal and insecticidal tetronic acid derivatives with a new mode of action. Chim. Int. J. Chem. 2003, 57, 697–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Sparks, T.C.; Nauen, R. IRAC: Mode of action classification and insecticide resistance management. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2015, 121, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  227. Xie, W.; Wu, Q.J.; Xu, B.Y.; Wang, S.L.; Zhang, Y.J. Evaluation on the effect of spirotetramat on controlling Bemisia tabaci. China Veg. 2011, 14, 69–73. [Google Scholar]
  228. Liu, T.-X. Toxicity and efficacy of spiromesifen, a tetronic acid insecticide, against sweetpotato whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on melons and collards. Crop Prot. 2004, 23, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Guthrie, F.; Denholm, I.; Devine, G.J.; Nauen, R. Biological evaluation of spiromesifen against Bemisia tabaci and an assessment of resistance risks. In Proceedings of the BCPC International Congress-Crop Science and Technology, BCPC, Glasgow, UK, 10–12 November 2003; pp. 795–800. [Google Scholar]
  230. Brück, E.; Elbert, A.; Fischer, R.; Krueger, S.; Kühnhold, J.; Klueken, A.M.; Nauen, R.; Niebes, J.-F.; Reckmann, U.; Schnorbach, H.-J.; et al. Movento®, an innovative ambimobile insecticide for sucking insect pest control in agriculture: Biological profile and field performance. Crop Prot. 2009, 28, 838–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Nauen, R.; Reckmann, U.; Thomzik, J.; Thielert, W. Biological profile of spirotetramat (Movento®)—a new two-way systemic (ambimobile) insecticide against sucking pest species. Bayer Cropsci. J. 2008, 61, 245–278. [Google Scholar]
  232. Nauen, R.; Steinbach, D. Resistance to diamide insecticides in lepidopteran pests. In Advances in Insect Control and Resistance Management; Horowitz, A.R., Ishaaya, I., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2016; pp. 219–240. [Google Scholar]
  233. Selby, T.P.; Lahm, G.P.; Stevenson, T.M.; Hughes, K.A.; Cordova, D.; Annan, I.B.; Barry, J.D.; Benner, E.A.; Currie, M.J.; Pahutski, T.F. Discovery of cyantraniliprole, a potent and selective anthranilic diamide ryanodine receptor activator with cross-spectrum insecticidal activity. Bioorganic Med. Chem. Lett. 2013, 23, 6341–6345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  234. Sattelle, D.B.; Cordova, D.; Cheek, T.R. Insect ryanodine receptors: Molecular targets for novel pest control chemicals. Invertebr. Neurosci. 2008, 8, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Govindappa, M.R.; Bhemanna, M.; Arunkumar, H.; Ghante, V.N. Bio-efficacy of newer insecticides against Tomato leaf curl virus disease and its vector whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) in tomato. Int. J. Appl. Biol. Pharm. Technol. 2013, 4, 226–231. [Google Scholar]
  236. Smith, H.A.; Giurcanu, M.C. Residual effects of new insecticides on egg and nymph densities of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Fla. Entomol. 2013, 96, 504–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Barry, J.D.; Portillo, H.E.; Annan, I.B.; Cameron, R.A.; Clagg, D.G.; Dietrich, R.F.; Watson, L.J.; Leighty, R.M.; Ryan, D.L.; McMillan, J.A.; et al. Movement of cyantraniliprole in plants after foliar applications and its impact on the control of sucking and chewing insects. Pest Manag. Sci. 2014, 71, 395–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  238. Caballero, R.; Schuster, D.J.; Peres, N.A.; Mangandi, J.; Hasing, T.; Trexler, F.; Kalb, S.; Portillo, H.E.; Marçon, P.C.; Annan, I.B. Effectiveness of cyantraniliprole for managing Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) and interfering with transmission of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus on tomato. J. Econ. Entomol. 2015, 108, 894–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Gouvêa, M.M.; Freitas, D.M.S.; Rezende, J.A.M.; Watanabe, L.F.M.; Lourenção, A.L. Bioassay of insecticides on mortality of Bemisia tabaci biotype B and transmission of Tomato severe rugose virus (ToSRV) on tomatoes. Phytoparasitica 2017, 45, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Wade, J.S.; Metcalf, C.L.; Flint, W.P.; Metcalf, R.L. Destructive and useful insects: Their habits and control. Am. Midl. Nat. 1953, 49, 938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Stansly, P.A.; Liu, T.X.; Schuster, D.J.; Dean, D.E. Role of biorational insecticides in management of Bemisia. In Bemisia: Taxonomy, Biology, Damage Control and Management; Gerling, D., Mayer, R.T., Jr., Eds.; Intercept Ltd.: Andover, UK, 1996; pp. 605–615. [Google Scholar]
  242. Schuster, D.J.; Thompson, S.; Ortega, L.D.; Polston, J.E. Laboratory evaluation of products to reduce settling of sweetpotato whitefly adults. J. Econ. Entomol. 2009, 102, 1482–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Butler, G.D., Jr.; Henneberry, T.J.; Stansly, P.A.; Schuster, D.J. Insecticidal effects of selected soaps, oils and detergents on the sweetpotato whitefly: (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Fla. Entomol. 1993, 76, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Liu, T.-X.; Stansly, P.A. Toxicity of biorational insecticides to Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on tomato leaves. J. Econ. Entomol. 1995, 88, 564–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Liu, T.-X.; Stansly, P.A. Toxicity and repellency of some biorational insecticides to Bemisia argentifolii on tomato plants. Èntomol. Exp. Appl. 1995, 74, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Liu, T.X.; Stansly, P.A. Insecticidal activity of surfactants and oils against silverleaf whitefly (Bemisia argentifolii) nymphs (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on collards and tomato. Pest Manag. Sci. 2000, 56, 861–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Vavrina, C.; Stansly, P.; Liu, T. Household detergent on tomato: Phytotoxicity and toxicity to silverleaf whitefly. HortScience 1995, 30, 1406–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  248. Sieburth, P.J.; Schroeder, W.J.; Mayer, R.T. Effects of oil and oil-surfactant combinations on silverleaf whitefly nymphs (Homoptera: Aleyroididae) on collards. Fla. Entomol. 1998, 81, 446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Liang, G.; Liu, T.-X. Repellency of a kaolin particle film, Surround, and a mineral oil, Sunspray oil, to silverleaf whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on melon in the laboratory. J. Econ. Entomol. 2002, 95, 317–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  250. Hussein, H.S.; Salem, M.Z.M.; Soliman, A.M. Repellent, attractive, and insecticidal effects of essential oils from Schinus terebinthifolius fruits and Corymbia citriodora leaves on two whitefly species, Bemisia tabaci, and Trialeurodes ricini. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 216, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Vite-Vallejo, O.; Barajas-Fernández, M.G.; Saavedra-Aguilar, M.; Cardoso-Taketa, A. Insecticidal effects of ethanolic extracts of Chenopodium ambrosioides, Piper nigrum, Thymus vulgaris, and Origanum vulgare against Bemisia tabaci. Southwest. Entomol. 2018, 43, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Chavan, R.; Yeotikar, S.; Gaikwad, B.; Dongarjal, R. Management of major pests of tomato with biopesticides. J. Entomol. Res. 2015, 39, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Asmita, S.; Ukey, S.P. Seed treatment with botanicals against tomato jassids and whiteflies. Indian J. Entomol. 2016, 78, 229–232. [Google Scholar]
  254. El-Shafe, H.A.F.; Abdelraheem, B.A. Field evaluation of three biopesticides for integrated management of major pests of tomato, Solanum lycopersicum L. in Sudan. Agric. Biol. J. North Am. 2012, 3, 340–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Kumar, P.; Poehling, H.M. Effects of azadirachtin, abamectin, and spinosad on sweetpotato whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on tomato plants under laboratory and greenhouse conditions in the humid tropics. J. Econ. Entomol. 2007, 100, 411–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Kumar, P.; Borgemeister, C.; Poehling, H.-M. Effects of different application methods of azadirachtin against sweetpotato whitefly Bemisia tabaci Gennadius (Hom., Aleyrodidae) on tomato plants. J. Appl. Entomol. 2005, 129, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Asaduzzaman, M.; Shim, J.K.; Lee, S.; Lee, K.Y. Azadirachtin ingestion is lethal and inhibits expression of ferritin and thioredoxin peroxidase genes of the sweetpotato whitefly Bemisia tabaci. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2016, 19, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Lynn, O.M.L.; Song, W.-G.; Shim, J.-K.; Kim, J.-E.; Lee, K.-Y. Effects of azadirachtin and neem-based formulations for the control of sweetpotato whitefly and root-knot nematode. J. Korean Soc. Appl. Biol. Chem. 2010, 53, 598–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Barati, R.; Golmohammadi, G.; Ghajarie, H.; Zarabi, M.; Mansouri, R. Efficiency of some herbal pesticides on reproductive parameters of silverleaf whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2013, 47, 212–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Diabate, D.; Gnago, J.A.; Koffi, K.; Tano, Y. The effect of pesticides and aqueous extracts of Azadirachta indica (A. Juss) and Jatropha carcus L. on Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Homoptera: Aleyrididae) and Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) found on tomato plants in Côte d’Ivoire. J. Appl. Biosci. 2014, 80, 7132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  261. Nzanza, B.; Mashela, P.W. Control of whiteflies and aphids in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) by fermented plant extracts of neem leaf and wild garlic. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2012, 11, 16077–16082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  262. Kumar, P.; Poehling, H.-M. Persistence of soil and foliar azadirachtin treatments to control sweetpotato whitefly Bemisia tabaci Gennadius (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on tomatoes under controlled (laboratory) and field (netted greenhouse) conditions in the humid tropics. J. Pest Sci. 2006, 79, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Baldin, E.L.L.; Crotti, A.E.M.; Wakabayashi, K.A.L.; Silva, J.P.G.F.; Aguiar, G.P.; Souza, E.S.; Veneziani, R.C.S.; Groppo, M. Plant-derived essential oils affecting settlement and oviposition of Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) biotype B on tomato. J. Pest Sci. 2012, 86, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. Baldin, E.L.L.; Aguiar, G.P.; Fanela, T.L.M.; Soares, M.C.E.; Groppo, M.; Crotti, A.E.M. Bioactivity of Pelargonium graveolens essential oil and related monoterpenoids against sweet potato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci biotype B. J. Pest Sci. 2014, 88, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Kim, S.-I.; Chae, S.-H.; Youn, H.-S.; Yeon, S.-H.; Ahn, Y.-J. Contact and fumigant toxicity of plant essential oils and efficacy of spray formulations containing the oils against B- and Q-biotypes of Bemisia tabaci. Pest Manag. Sci. 2011, 67, 1093–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  266. Fanela, T.L.M.; Baldin, E.L.L.; Pannuti, L.E.R.; Cruz, P.L.; Crotti, A.E.M.; Takeara, R.; Kato, M.J. Lethal and inhibitory activities of plant-derived essential oils against Bemisia tabaci Gennadius (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) biotype B in tomato. Neotrop. Entomol. 2015, 45, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Wagan, T.A.; Cai, W.; Hua, H. Repellency, toxicity, and anti-oviposition of essential oil of Gardenia jasminoides and its four major chemical components against whiteflies and mites. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 9375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  268. Yang, N.-W.; Li, A.-L.; Wan, F.-H.; Liu, W.-X.; Johnson, D. Effects of plant essential oils on immature and adult sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci biotype B. Crop Prot. 2010, 29, 1200–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Deletre, E.; Chandre, F.; Barkman, B.; Menut, C.; Martin, T. Naturally occurring bioactive compounds from four repellent essential oils against Bemisia tabaci whiteflies. Pest Manag. Sci. 2015, 72, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  270. Horowitz, A.R.; Denholm, I.; Morin, S. Resistance to insecticides in the TYLCV vector, Bemisia tabaci. In Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus Disease: Management, Molecular Biology, Breeding for Resistance; Czosnek, H., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 305–325. [Google Scholar]
  271. Arnó, J.; Gabarra, R.; Liu, T.-X.; Simmons, A.M.; Gerling, D. Natural enemies of Bemisia tabaci: Predators and parasitoids. In Bemisia: Bionomics and Management of a Global Pest; Stansly, P.A., Naranjo, S.E., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 385–421. [Google Scholar]
  272. David, V. The Whitefly or Mealywing Bugs—Bio-ecology, Host Specificity and Management, 1st ed.; Lambert Academic Publishing: Saarbrücken, Germany, 2012; p. 411. [Google Scholar]
  273. Gerling, D.; AlOmar, Ò.; Arnò, J. Biological control of Bemisia tabaci using predators and parasitoids. Crop Prot. 2001, 20, 779–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Naranjo, S.E. Conservation and evaluation of natural enemies in IPM systems for Bemisia tabaci. Crop Prot. 2001, 20, 835–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  275. Liu, T.-X.; Stansly, P.A.; Gerling, D. Whitefly parasitoids: Distribution, life history, bionomics, and utilization. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2015, 60, 273–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  276. Faria, M.; Wraight, S.P. Biological control of Bemisia tabaci with fungi. Crop Prot. 2001, 20, 767–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Tan, X.; Hu, N.; Zhang, F.; Ramirez-Romero, R.; Desneux, N.; Wang, S.; Ge, F. Mixed release of two parasitoids and a polyphagous ladybird as a potential strategy to control the tobacco whitefly Bemisia tabaci. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 28245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  278. Heinz, K.M.; Zalom, F.G. Performance of the predator Delphastus pusillus on Bemisia resistant and susceptible tomato lines. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1996, 81, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  279. Simmons, A.M.; Legaspi, J.C. Ability of Delphastus catalinae (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), a predator of whiteflies (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae), to survive mild winters. J. Entomol. Sci. 2007, 42, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. AlOmar, O.; Riudavets, J.; Castañe, C. Macrolophus caliginosus in the biological control of Bemisia tabaci on greenhouse melons. Biol. Control 2006, 36, 154–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Calvo, J.; Bolckmans, K.; Stansly, P.A.; Urbaneja, A. Predation by Nesidiocoris tenuis on Bemisia tabaci and injury to tomato. BioControl 2008, 54, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Calvo, F.J.; Bolckmans, K.; Belda, J.E. Development of a biological control-based integrated pest management method for Bemisia tabaci for protected sweet pepper crops. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2009, 133, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Moreno-Ripoll, R.; Agusti, N.; Berruezo, R.; Gabarra, R. Conspecifc and heterospecific interactions between two omnivorous predators on tomato. Biol. Control 2012, 62, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. Karut, K.; Kazak, C.; Döker, I. Potential of single and combined releases of Eretmocerus mundus and Macrolophus melanotoma to suppress Bemisia tabaci in protected eggplant. Biol. Control 2018, 126, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  285. Legaspi, J.C.; Correa, J.A.; Carruthers, R.I.; Legaspi, B.C., Jr.; Nordlund, D.A. Effect of short-term releases of Chrysoperla rufilabris (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) against silverleaf whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in field cages. J. Entomol. Sci. 1996, 31, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  286. Rehman, H. Use of Chrysoperla carnea larvae to control whitefly (Aleyrodidea: Hemiptera) on tomato plant in greenhouse. Pure Appl. Biol. 2020, 9, 2128–2137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Alghamdi, A.; Al-Otaibi, S.; Sayed, S.M. Field evaluation of indigenous predacious insect, Chrysoperla carnea (Steph.) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), fitness in controlling aphids and whiteflies in two vegetable crops. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2018, 28, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  288. Adly, D. Use of predators for controlling the whitefly, Bemisia tabaci Genn. and the two spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch., in cucumber greenhouses in Egypt. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2016, 26, 701–706. [Google Scholar]
  289. Horowitz, A.R.; Antignus, Y.; Gerling, D. Management of Bemisia tabaci whiteflies. In the Whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) Interaction with Geminivirus-Infected Host Plants: Bemisia tabaci, Host Plants and Geminiviruses; Thompson, W.M.O., Ed.; Springer: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 293–322. [Google Scholar]
  290. Calvo, J.; Fernández, P.; Bolckmans, K.; Belda, J.E. Amblyseius swirskii (Acari: Phytoseiidae) as a biological control agent of the tobacco whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Hom.: Aleyrodidae) in protected sweet pepper crops in Southern Spain. IOBC-WPRS Bull. 2006, 29, 77–82. [Google Scholar]
  291. Calvo, F.; Bolckmans, K.; Belda, J. Biological control-based IPM in sweet pepper greenhouses using Amblyseius swirskii (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2012, 22, 1398–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Bouagga, S.; Urbaneja, A.; Pérez-Hedo, M. Combined use of predatory mirids with Amblyseius swirskii (Acari: Phytoseiidae) to enhance pest management in sweet pepper. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 1112–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Cheng, C.; Junqi, J.; Xiaofei, X.; Ying, W.; Guiting, L. Predatory mites control Bemisia tabaci on tomato plants in greenhouse. J. Anhui Agric. Univ. 2014, 41, 685–689. [Google Scholar]
  294. Döker, I.; Hernandez, Y.V.; Mannion, C.; Carrillo, D. First report of Amblyseius tamatavensis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in the United States of America. Int. J. Acarol. 2018, 44, 101–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  295. Cavalcante, A.C.C.; Mandro, M.E.A.; Paes, E.R.; De Moraes, G.J. Amblyseius tamatavensis Blommers (Acari: Phytoseiidae) a candidate for biological control of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) biotype B (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in Brazil. Int. J. Acarol. 2016, 43, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  296. Ibrahim, E.G. Evaluation of release patterns of the parasitoids Eretmocerus mondus and Encarsia formosa (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) to control the whitefly (Homoptera: Alyerodidae) on sweet potato plants. A.S.E.J. 2009, 30, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. Hoddle, M.S. Biological control of whiteflies on ornamental crops. In Biocontrol in Protected Culture; Heinz, K., Van Driesche, R.G., Parrella, M.P., Eds.; Ball Publishing: Batavia, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 149–170. [Google Scholar]
  298. Stansly, P.; Sánchez, P.; Rodríguez, J.; Cañizares, F.; Nieto, A.; Leyva, M.; Fajardo, M.; Suárez, V.; Urbaneja, A. Prospects for biological control of Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera, Aleyrodidae) in greenhouse tomatoes of southern Spain. Crop Prot. 2004, 23, 701–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  299. Stansly, P.A.; Calvo, J.; Urbaneja, A. Augmentative biological control of Bemisia tabaci biotype “Q” in greenhouse pepper using Eretmocerus spp. (Hym. Aphelinidae). Crop Prot. 2005, 24, 829–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  300. Stansly, P.A.; Calvo, J.; Urbaneja, A. Release rates for control of Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) biotype “Q” with Eretmocerus mundus (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) in greenhouse tomato and pepper. Biol. Control 2005, 35, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  301. Kumar, V.; Houben, K.; McKenzie, C.L.; Osborne, L.S. Efficacy of Eretmocerus eremicus and flupyradifurone on Bemisia tabaci (MED whitefly), 2017. Arthropod Manag. Tests 2017, 42, tsx128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  302. Kumar, V.; Houben, K.; McKenzie, C.L.; Osborne, L.S. Efficacy of Eretmocerus eremicus and cyantraniliprole on Bemisia tabaci (MED whitefly), 2017. Arthropod Manag. Tests 2017, 42, tsx116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  303. Gabarra, R.; Zapata, R.; Castañé, C.; Riudavets, J.; Arnó, J. Releases of Eretmocerus mundus and Macrolophus caliginosus for controlling Bemisia tabaci on spring and autumn greenhouse tomato crops. IOBC-WPRS Bull. 2006, 29, 71–76. [Google Scholar]
  304. López, S.N.; Andorno, A.V. Evaluation of the local population of Eretmocerus mundus (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) for biological control of Bemisia tabaci biotype B (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in greenhouse peppers in Argentina. Biol. Control 2009, 50, 317–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  305. Fuxa, J.R. Ecological considerations for the use of entomopathogens in IPM. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 1987, 32, 225–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  306. Grewal, P.S.; Ehlers, R.U.; Shapiro-Ilan, D.I. Nematodes as Biocontrol Agents; CABI: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  307. Sandhu, S.S.; Sharma, A.K.; Beniwal, V.; Goel, G.; Batra, P.; Kumar, A.; Jaglan, S.; Malhotra, S. Myco-biocontrol of insect pests: Factors involved, mechanism, and regulation. J. Pathog. 2012, 2012, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  308. Leger, R.S.; Screen, S. Prospects for strain improvement of fungal pathogens of insects and weeds. In Fungi as Biocontrol Agents: Progress, Problems and Potential; Butt, T.M., Jackson, C., Magan, N., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2001; pp. 219–238. [Google Scholar]
  309. Akhurst, R.; Smith, K. Regulation and safety. In Entomopathogenic Nematology; Gaugler, R., Ed.; CABI: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 311–332. [Google Scholar]
  310. Li, Y.; Cloyd, R.A.; Bello, N.M. Effect of integrating the entomopathogenic fungus (Hypocreales: Cordycipitaceae) and the rove beetle (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) in suppressing western flower thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) populations under green-house conditions. J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 112, 2085–2093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  311. Shapiro-Ilan, D.I.; Gouge, D.H.; Koppenhöfer, A.M. Factors affecting commercial success: Case studies in cotton, turf and citrus. In Entomopathogenic Nematology; Gaugler, R., Ed.; CABI: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 333–356. [Google Scholar]
  312. Shapiro-Ilan, D.I.; Hazir, S.; Glazer, I. Advances in use of entomopathogenic nematodes in IPM. In Integrated Management of Insect Pests: Current and Future Developments; Kogan, M., Heinrichs, E.A., Eds.; Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2020; pp. 649–678. [Google Scholar]
  313. Kaya, H.K.; Gaugler, R. Entomopathogenic nematodes. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1993, 38, 181–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  314. Cuthbertson, A.G.; Head, J.; Walters, K.F.; Gregory, S.A. The efficacy of the entomopathogenic nematode, Steinernema feltiae, against the immature stages of Bemisia tabaci. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2003, 83, 267–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  315. Cuthbertson, A.; Head, J.; Walters, K.; Murray, A. The integrated use of chemical insecticides and the entomopathogenic nematode, Steinernema feltiae, for the control of sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci. Nematology 2003, 5, 713–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  316. Cuthbertson, A.; Walters, K.; Northing, P.; Luo, W. Efficacy of the entomopathogenic nematode, Steinernema feltiae, against sweetpotato whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) under laboratory and glasshouse conditions. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2007, 97, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  317. Cuthbertson, A.G.S.; Mathers, J.J.; Northing, P.; Luo, W.; Walters, K.F.A. The susceptibility of immature stages of Bemisia tabaci to infection by the entomopathogenic nematode Steinernema carpocapsae. Russ. J. Nematol. 2007, 15, 153–156. [Google Scholar]
  318. Cuthbertson, A.G.S.; Mathers, J.J.; Northing, P.; Prickett, A.J.; Walters, K.F.A. The integrated use of chemical insecticides and the entomopathogenic nematode, Steinernema carpocapsae (Nematoda: Steinernematidae), for the control of sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Insect Sci. 2008, 15, 447–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  319. Meza-García, J.L.; Elías-Santos, M.; Cortez-Mondaca, E.; Guerrero-Olazarán, M.; Viader-Salvadó, J.M.; Luna-Olvera, H.A.; Maldonado-Blanco, M.G.; Zapata, I.Q.; Pereyra-Alferez, B. Evaluation of Heterorhabditis indica (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae) nematode strain from Sinaloa, Mexico, against Bemisia tabaci immatures under laboratory conditions. Southwest. Entomol. 2014, 39, 727–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  320. Ruiz-Platt, A.L.; Cabello, T. Efficacy of nematodes for biological control of the whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Hem.: Aleyrodidae) in a pepper crop. IOBC-WPRS Bull. 2009, 49, 97–101. [Google Scholar]
  321. Head, J.; Lawrence, A.J.; Walters, K.F.A. Efficacy of the entomopathogenic nematode, Steinernema feltiae, against Bemisia tabaci in relation to plant species. J. Appl. Entomol. 2004, 128, 543–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  322. Hafiza, T.G.; Shafqat, S.; Fawad, Z.A.K. Entomopathogenic fungi as effective insect pest management tactic: A review. Appl. Sci. Bus. Econ. 2014, 1, 10–18. [Google Scholar]
  323. Mbata, G.N.; Shapiro-Ilan, D.I. The potential for controlling Pangaeus bilineatus (Say) (Heteroptera: Cydnidae) using a combination of entomopathogens and an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 2013, 106, 2072–2076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  324. Mbata, G.N.; Ivey, C.; Shapiro-Ilan, D. The potential for using entomopathogenic nematodes and fungi in the management of the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais (Motschulsky) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Biol. Control 2018, 125, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  325. Harris-Shultz, K.; Knoll, J.; Punnuri, S.; Niland, E.; Ni, X. Evaluation of strains of Beauveria bassiana and Isaria fumosorosea to control sugarcane aphids on grain sorghum. A.G.E. 2020, 3, 20047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  326. Fransen, J.J. Natural enemies of whiteflies: Fungi. In Whiteflies: Their Bionomics, Pest Status and Management; Gerling, D., Ed.; Intercept Ltd.: Andover, UK, 1990; pp. 187–210. [Google Scholar]
  327. Steenberg, T.; Humber, R. Entomopathogenic potential of Verticillium lecanii and Acremonium species (Deuteromycotina: Hyphomycetes). J. Invertebr. Pathol. 1999, 1, 309–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  328. Santiago-Álvarez, C.; Maranhao, E.A.; Maranhao, E.; Quesada-Moraga, E. Host plant influences pathogenicity of Beauveria bassiana to Bemisia tabaci and its sporulation on cadavers. BioControl 2006, 51, 519–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  329. Olleka, A.; Mandour, N.; Ren, S. Effect of host plant on susceptibility of whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) to the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana (Ascomycota: Hypocreales). Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2009, 19, 717–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  330. Wraight, S.; Carruthers, R.; Jaronski, S.; Bradley, C.; Garza, C. Evaluation of the entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana and Paecilomyces fumosoroseus for microbial control of the silverleaf whitefly, Bemisia argentifolii. Biol. Control 2000, 17, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  331. Mascarin, G.M.; Kobori, N.N.; Quintela, E.D.; Delalibera, ĺ., Jr. The virulence of entomopathogenic fungi against Bemisia tabaci biotype B (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) and their conidial production using solid substrate fermentation. BioControl 2013, 66, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  332. Mascarin, G.M.; Kobori, N.N.; Quintela, E.D.; Arthurs, S.P.; Delalibera, ĺ., Jr. Toxicity of non-ionic surfactants and interactions with fungal entomopathogens toward Bemisia tabaci biotype B. BioControl 2014, 59, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  333. Cuthbertson, A.G.S.; Walters, K.F.A. Pathogenicity of the entomopathogenic fungus, Lecanicillium muscarium, against the sweet potato whitefly Bemisia tabaci, under laboratory and glasshouse conditions. Mycopathologia 2005, 160, 315–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  334. Cuthbertson, A.G.S.; Walters, K.F.A.; Deppe, C. Compatibility of the entomopathogenic fungus Lecanicillium muscarium and insecticides for eradication of sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci. Mycopathologia 2005, 160, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  335. Cuthbertson, A.G.S.; Walters, K.F.A.; Northing, P. The susceptibility of immature stages of Bemisia tabaci to the entomopath-ogenic fungus Lecanicillium muscarium on tomato and verbena foliage. Mycopathologia 2005, 159, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  336. James, R.R. Combining azadirachtin and Paecilomyces fumosoroseus (Deuteromycotina: Hyphomycetes) to control Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2003, 96, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  337. Dos Santos, T.T.M.; Quintela, E.D.; Mascarin, G.M.; Santana, M.V. Enhanced mortality of Bemisia tabaci nymphs by Isaria javanica combined with sublethal doses of chemical insecticides. J. Appl. Entomol. 2018, 142, 598–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  338. James, R.R.; Elzen, G.W. Antagonism between Beauveria bassiana and imidacloprid when combined for Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) control. J. Econ. Èntomol. 2001, 94, 357–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  339. Dutcher, J.D. A review of resurgence and replacement causing pest outbreaks in IPM. In General Concepts in Integrated Pest and Disease Management; Ciancio, A., Mukerji, K.G., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 27–43. [Google Scholar]
  340. Chandler, D.; Bailey, A.S.; Tatchell, G.M.; Davidson, G.; Greaves, J.; Grant, W.P. The development, regulation and use of biopesticides for integrated pest management. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2011, 366, 1987–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  341. Guo, J.-Y.; Cong, L.; Zhou, Z.-S.; Wan, F.-H. Multi-generation life tables of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) biotype B (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) under high-temperature stress. Environ. Entomol. 2012, 41, 1672–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  342. Xia, C.; Chon, T.-S.; Ren, Z.; Lee, J.-M. Automatic identification and counting of small size pests in greenhouse conditions with low computational cost. Ecol. Inform. 2015, 29, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  343. Hannon, G.J. RNA interference. Nature 2002, 418, 244–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  344. Baulcombe, D.C. RNA silencing in plants. Nature 2004, 431, 356–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  345. Kennerdell, J.R.; Carthew, R.W. Use of dsRNA-mediated genetic interference to demonstrate that frizzled and frizzled 2 act in the wingless pathway. Cell 1998, 95, 1017–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  346. Vermehren, A.; Qazi, S.; Trimmer, B.A. The nicotinic α subunit MARA1 is necessary for cholinergic evoked calcium transients in Manduca neurons. Neurosci. Lett. 2001, 313, 113–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  347. Paskewitz, S.M.; Andreev, O.; Shi, L. Gene silencing of serine proteases affects melanization of Sephadex beads in Anopheles gambiae. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2006, 36, 701–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  348. Ghanim, M.; Kontsedalov, S.; Czosnek, H. Tissue-specific gene silencing by RNA interference in the whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius). Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2007, 37, 732–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  349. Luan, J.-B.; Li, J.-M.; Varela, N.; Wang, Y.-L.; Li, F.-F.; Bao, Y.-Y.; Zhang, C.-X.; Liu, S.-S.; Wang, X.-W. Global analysis of the transcriptional response of whitefly to Tomato yellow leaf curl China virus reveals the relationship of coevolved adaptations. J. Virol. 2011, 85, 3330–3340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  350. Vyas, M.; Raza, A.; Ali, M.Y.; Ashraf, M.A.; Mansoor, S.; Shahid, A.A.; Brown, J.K. Knock down of whitefly gut gene expression and mortality by orally delivered gut gene-specific dsRNAs. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0168921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  351. Malik, H.J.; Raza, A.; Amin, I.; Scheffler, J.A.; Scheffler, B.E.; Brown, J.K.; Mansoor, S. RNAi-mediated mortality of the whitefly through transgenic expression of double-stranded RNA homologous to acetylcholinesterase and ecdysone receptor in tobacco plants. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 38469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  352. Luan, J.-B.; Ghanim, M.; Liu, S.-S.; Czosnek, H. Silencing the ecdysone synthesis and signaling pathway genes disrupts nymphal development in the whitefly. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2013, 43, 740–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  353. Upadhyay, S.K.; Dixit, S.; Sharma, S.; Singh, H.; Kumar, J.; Verma, P.C.; Chandrashekar, K. siRNA machinery in whitefly (Bemisia tabaci). PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e83692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  354. Li, J.; Li, X.; Bai, R.; Shi, Y.; Tang, Q.; An, S.; Song, Q.; Yan, F. RNA interference of the P450CYP6CM1gene has different efficacy in B and Q biotypes of Bemisia tabaci. Pest Manag. Sci. 2015, 71, 1175–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Bemisia tabaci egg (on low left side), adult and fourth instar nymph on the underside of a snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) leaf under microscope with 12.6× magnification (Li et al., unpublished).
Figure 1. Bemisia tabaci egg (on low left side), adult and fourth instar nymph on the underside of a snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) leaf under microscope with 12.6× magnification (Li et al., unpublished).
Insects 12 00198 g001
Figure 2. Bemisia tabaci eggs and first instar nymph on the underside of a snap bean leaf under microscope with 40× magnification (Li et al., unpublished).
Figure 2. Bemisia tabaci eggs and first instar nymph on the underside of a snap bean leaf under microscope with 40× magnification (Li et al., unpublished).
Insects 12 00198 g002
Table 1. Incidence and impact of B. tabaci on vegetable crops in the Southern United States.
Table 1. Incidence and impact of B. tabaci on vegetable crops in the Southern United States.
Southern StatesTime FramesVegetable CropsLossesSources
USD
(Millions)
% of Crop
Florida1991Tomato>125 [93]
1990–1991Tomato141 [14]
Georgia2016Tomato, snap bean, most cucurbit132.3 [94,95]
2017Tomato, snap bean, most cucurbit161.2 [94,95]
2017Snap bean 45[94,95]
2017Squash 35[94,95]
Texas1991Vegetables29 [96]
Arkansas2006Eggplant, okra, pepperProblems were observed[97]
Kentucky2007TomatoProblems were observed[98]
Tennessee2014TomatoSporadic in the field[99]
South Carolina2017VegetablesUnusually severe and widespread[100]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, Y.; Mbata, G.N.; Punnuri, S.; Simmons, A.M.; Shapiro-Ilan, D.I. Bemisia tabaci on Vegetables in the Southern United States: Incidence, Impact, and Management. Insects 2021, 12, 198. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12030198

AMA Style

Li Y, Mbata GN, Punnuri S, Simmons AM, Shapiro-Ilan DI. Bemisia tabaci on Vegetables in the Southern United States: Incidence, Impact, and Management. Insects. 2021; 12(3):198. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12030198

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Yinping, George N. Mbata, Somashekhar Punnuri, Alvin M. Simmons, and David I. Shapiro-Ilan. 2021. "Bemisia tabaci on Vegetables in the Southern United States: Incidence, Impact, and Management" Insects 12, no. 3: 198. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12030198

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop