International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology

Vol-10, Issue-5; Sep-Oct, 2025

Peer-Reviewed International Journal
Journal Home Page Available: https://ijeab.com/
Journal DOI: 10.22161/ijeab

Utilizing Locally Isolated Parasitoid, Encarsia

guadeloupae, (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), for Biological
Control of Coconut Whitefly, (Aleurodicus
rugioperculatus), in Sri Lanka.
K.M.D.W.P. Nishantha1, M.H.N.Y. Malwenna1, W.M.C. Weerakoon3, A.R. Attanayake1,
S.W.G.A.N. Kumari1, D.M.I.C.B Dissanayake1, M.A.G.C.N. Premarathne2

1
Horticulture Crops Research and Development Institute, Gannoruwa, Sri Lanka
Email: [email protected]
2
National Plant Protection Service, Gannoruwa, Sri Lanka
3
Office of the Seed Certification and Plant Protection (Western Province), Horana, Sri Lanka

Received: 28 Jul 2025; Received in revised form: 27 Aug 2025; Accepted: 30 Aug 2025; Available online: 06 Sep 2025
©2025 The Author(s). Published by Infogain Publication. This is an open-access article under the CC BY license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract— Coconut Whitefly (Aleurodicus rugiopercularus) infestation possess a growing threat to various
coconut growing regions in Sri Lanka since 2019. The National Plant Protection Service in collaborated
with Horticultural Crops Research and Development Institute conducted a series of studies to investigate the
potential use of locally isolated parasitoid, Encarsia guadelopae for the control of coconut whitefly. The
parasitoid E. guadeloupae identified as a promising biocontrol agent of coconut whitefly due to its efficacy
in damaging the nymphal stages of whitefly. The study initiated with a comprehensive field survey across
seven districts to assess the severity of whitefly damage followed by a laboratory analysis of whitefly
parasitoids for identification and rearing. Mass production of A. rugioperculatus and E. guadeloupae was
carried out using various host-plant species under the laboratory conditions. Field release of parasitoids
were conducted in selected locations, using two distinct methods. Results indicated successful taxonomic
identification of A. rugioperculatus and E. guadeloupae, with coconut identified as the preferred host for
whitefly rearing. The field release of parasitoids indicates a significant increase in parasitism level and a
corresponding decrease in whitefly populations in coconut plantations. In conclusion, the study establishes
the feasibility of mass rearing and field release of E. guadeloupae as an environmentally friendly and
effective strategy for biological control of coconut whitefly infestations.
Keywords— Aleurodicus rugiopercularus, Encarsia guadelopae, Biological control, Coconut whitefly,
Parasitoid wasp, Mass rearing

I. INTRODUCTION Whitefly feeding induces stress to the host plants by

Aleurodicus rugioperculatus (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: extracting water and nutrients while also secreting
Aleyrodidae) commonly known as Coconut whitefly is a honeydew, which favors the growth of sooty mold on the
serious pest causing economic losses to ornamentals and leaf surface resulting a massive threat to coconut cultivation.
tropical crops in many countries [2]. Recently, the Management of coconut Whitefly possess significant
infestation of coconut whitefly has been observed in various challenges because of their wide host range. Biological
coconut growing regions in Sri Lanka including Colombo, control of pest becomes an ecologically sound and effective
Kaluthara, Gampaha, Kegalle, Batticaloa, Kandy and Jaffna. solution for whitefly infestation. Whiteflies have a number

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.105.1 1
Nishantha et al. Utilizing Locally Isolated Parasitoid, Encarsia guadeloupae, (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), for
Biological Control of Coconut Whitefly, (Aleurodicus rugioperculatus), in Sri Lanka.

of naturally occurring parasites with them Encarsia 2.3. Mass production of A. rugioperculatus and E.
guadeluopae (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidea) has been guadeloupae
identified as the most commonly found natural enemy of A. The identified prominent parasitoid species, Encarsia
rugioperculatus [8]. E. guadeluopae is an obligate guadeloupae, isolated from the field samples, was reared in
endoparasitoid against A. rugioperculatus nymphs [11]. the laboratory for mass production. Six host plant species
The adult stage of this parasite damages the nymphal stage viz Poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima), Canna (Canna
of the whitefly. Therefore, E. guadeluopae can be utilized indica), Banana (Musa spp), Fan palm (Livistona chinensis),
as a biocontrol agent for managing coconut whitefly Ground nut (Arachis hypogaea), and Coconut (Cocos
populations. This approach is environmentally friendly and nucifera) were tested under laboratory conditions to select
can serve as an alternative to chemical pesticides. the most suitable host-plant for mass rearing.
The National Plant Protection Service of the Department of Each host plant was placed in a single rearing cage (1.5 ×
Agriculture as the mandated institute responsible for 2× 1 ft). Raring cages were placed under the room
implementing the Plant Protection Act 1999, No 35, in temperature. One hundred whitefly adults were introduced
collaboration with Horticultural Crops Research and at a time, in 2 times with 1-day interval. The number of egg
Development Institute, conducted a comprehensive survey masses laid/leaf and the number of days taken to develop
to assess the severity of whitefly damage in these areas. eggs, nymphs, pupa and adults were observed.
Through precise laboratory analysis of collected samples,
After selecting the most suitable host plant, mass rearing
whitefly parasitoids were identified and preserved for
was commenced. Mass raring process consists of the
further rearing and identification.
following steps.
1. Maintenance of host plants for rearing A.
II. METHODOLOGY rugioperculatus
2.1. Field survey 2. Establishment of pure culture of A.
Field survey was conducted across Kaluthara, Colombo, rugioperculatus
Gampaha, Kegalle, Kandy, Batticaloa and Kurunegala 3. Establishment of parasitoid (E. guadeloupae)
districts, where sever whitefly pandemic was recorded for culture
the first time in Sri Lanka. Whitefly infested fields were 2.3.1. Maintenance of host plants for raring A.
selected and coconut leaf samples infested with whiteflies rugioperculatus
were collected from each location. Leaflet parts measuring Coconut seedlings (2 ft height) were selected from plant
4cm × 2cm were examined under the dissecting microscope nurseries as the most suitable host plants for raring A.
(20x). The number of observed whitefly adults, nymphs, rugiperculatus. The collected plants were maintained in
parasitized pupae and parasitoid emerged pupal cases were mini-protected plant houses under the controlled
recorded to determine the population density of whitefly environmental conditions.
and the natural parasitism of E. guadelouoae. These leaflet
2.3.2. Establishment of pure culture of A.
parts were stored in well ventilated 200 ml plastic cups for
rugioperculatus
three weeks until the emergence of possible whitefly and
parasitoid adults. Emerged whiteflies and parasitoids were Coconut seedlings were transferred into insect raring cages.
collected in vials containing 70% alcohol for taxonomic The adult whiteflies aspirated from field samples were
identification. released into raring cage. One hundred adult whiteflies at a
time were introduced up to 3 days into the cage in order to
2.2. Identification of whitefly and parasitoids
establish a pure culture of A. rugioperculatus. Adults were
Taxonomic identification was conducted based on kept undisturbed for oviposition and allowed to develop a
morphological characters following the identification key new life cycle on the host plants. New coconut plants were
developed by Martin (2004) and Hernandaz et al. (2003). introduced in four-week interval to be attacked by the newly
Puparial cases of adult whiteflies and adult parasitoids were emerging whitefly adults.
slide mounted using the protocols described by Nelson et al
2.3.3. Establishment of parasitoid (E.
(2001) and Gill (1990). Specimens were observed using
guadeloupae) culture
both a dissecting microscope (20x) and a compound light
microscope (100x and 400x). Coconut plants with egg masses were selected from the pure
culture of A. rugioperculatus and transferred into parasite
raring cages. The plants were allowed to develop up to 2 nd
and 3rd nymphal stages for introducing parasites. Adults of

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.105.1 2
Nishantha et al. Utilizing Locally Isolated Parasitoid, Encarsia guadeloupae, (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), for
Biological Control of Coconut Whitefly, (Aleurodicus rugioperculatus), in Sri Lanka.

E. guadeloupae emerged from coconut leaf samples were collected from each location. Number of existing
collected in the field, were aspirated and introduced into the whiteflies puparial cases, both with and without emergence
cage. The adult introduction occurred in four stages, with a hole were recorded to determine the percentage of
four-day interval, releasing ten adults at each stage. After parasitism.
20-23 days from the introduction of adult parasitoids, the
host plants were transferred into collection cages.
III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
2.4. Field release of parasitoids
3.1. Taxonomic identification
Field release was conducted in late maha season in
3.1.1. Identification of Aleurodicus rugioperculatus
2022/2023. Thirty-two locations were selected in Kaluthara,
Colombo, Gampaha, Kegalle, Kandy and Batticaloa Adult whiteflies are about three times (2.5 mm) larger than
districts where sever whitefly pandemic was recorded. commonly found whiteflies. They can be distinguished by
their larger size and the existence of a two irregular light
Two methods were used to field release of parasitoids:
brown bands across the wings. The eyes are dark reddish
2.4.1. Introduction of adult parasitoids to brown in color. Antenna consists of seven segments.
whitefly infested plants Females are larger than males. Males have a pincer like
Adult parasitoids reared in the laboratory were aspirated structure at the end of the abdomen (Fig.1.a).
from the raring cages and placed in 250 mL plastic
containers. To provide an artificial food source, a 10% sugar
solution was supplied to these containers. These cups were
hung near the canopy area of coconut trees and the lid of the
cups were opened to release adult parasitoids.
2.4.2 Introduction of parasitoid cards to
infested fields
Parasitized pupae of whiteflies were carefully separated
from the leaf using no 10-paint brush. Fifty pupae were then
Fig 1: Adult whiteflies. a. Male; b. Female
mounted on a cardboard-card using special gum tape, all
under observing from a dissecting microscope. These
parasitoid containing cards could be stored in the Whitefly identification is mostly based on the characters of
refrigerator for one to two weeks until field release. Two the puparial case. Distinguishable features of the puparial
parasitoid cards were introduced to each plant, totaling 20 case were rugose nature of the operculum (Fig.2.a),
cards per acre. These cards were placed to the canopy area triangular nature of the lingula (Fig.2.b), occurrence of the
of the coconut tree by hanging on leaflets. reticulated margin on dorsum (Fig.2.c), compound pores
This introduction process was repeated five times at two- with dagger like process (Fig.2.d) and presence of smaller
week intervals in each location. After each round of compound pores in VII and VIII segments (Fig.2.e).
releasing parasitoids into the field, coconut leaf samples

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.105.1 3
Nishantha et al. Utilizing Locally Isolated Parasitoid, Encarsia guadeloupae, (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), for
Biological Control of Coconut Whitefly, (Aleurodicus rugioperculatus), in Sri Lanka.

Fig 2: Characters of puparial case. a. rugose operculum; b. triangular lingua; c. reticulated margin on dorsum; d.
compound pores with dagger like process; e. presence of smaller compound pores

Fig. 3: Adult E. guadeloupae

3.1.2. Identification of Encarsia guadeloupae 2. Tarsal formula 5-4-5. In the mesosoma 9-11 pairs of setae
An average of 98% of emerged parasitoids from the samples on the mesocutum and 2 pairs of setae on the scutellum.
showed similar characteristics, and they were identified as More than 2 setae on each side of gastral tergites II and III.
Encarsia guadeloupae based on the specific features of the Fore wings with 3 setae on basal cell, 2 setae on sub
species. Adults were dark brown with yellow scutellum. marginal vein and 6-7 long setae on the anterior margin of
Antenna pale with radical and scape brown. Legs pale the marginal vein (Fig. 4).
except hind coxae and hind femur. Antennal formula 1-1-4-

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.105.1 4
Nishantha et al. Utilizing Locally Isolated Parasitoid, Encarsia guadeloupae, (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), for
Biological Control of Coconut Whitefly, (Aleurodicus rugioperculatus), in Sri Lanka.

Fig 4: Body parts of E. guadeloupae a-b antenna; c-e fore wing; f-h thorax; i. fore leg; j. mid leg; k. hind leg

3.2. Mass production of A. rugioperculatus and E. Highest mean egg spirals were observed in coconut (18),
guadeloupae while the lowest were observed in groundnut (2).
Six host plants were selected for raring coconut whitefly Oviposition preference of whitefly is influenced by the leaf
based on the earlier reports. All the six host plants tested hairiness. They more prefer rough leaf surfaces. Coconut
were found to be favorable for the oviposition of whitefly. having rough leaf surface was more favored by whiteflies
for their oviposition.

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.105.1 5
Nishantha et al. Utilizing Locally Isolated Parasitoid, Encarsia guadeloupae, (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), for
Biological Control of Coconut Whitefly, (Aleurodicus rugioperculatus), in Sri Lanka.

25

20 Day 1 Day 2
Mean egg spirals/leaf

15

10

0
Poinsettia Canna Banana Ruffeled fan Ground nut Coconut
plam
Host plants

Fig 5: Mean egg spirals per leaf in tested host plants

When consider the number of days taken to develop the Coconut has been selected as the optimal host plant to rare
stages of the life cycle among six host plants, there was no whitefly providing an environment conductive to both
significant difference of mean number of days taken to whitefly oviposition and the successful parasitism of E.
develop 2nd instar larvae and pupae. All the other guadeloupae. This preference is attributed to the favorable
development stages were significant (Table 1). All the conditions that support the entire life cycle of whitefly.
treatments except groundnut were capable to develop all the Additionally, the relatively short life cycle of the whitefly
stages of whitefly. In groundnut whiteflies were unable to makes coconut an efficient choice for mass rearing,
initiate and develop their lifecycle. Shortest life cycle of enabling a rapid and efficient production process.
whitefly was observed in coconut (29.67 ± 0.57) while the
longest was in banana (37.67 ± 0.57).

Table 1: Mean number of days taken to develop eggs, larvae, pupae and adults per plant
Host Number of days taken to develop Total life cycle
plant
Eggs 1st Instar 2nd Instar 3rd Instar Pupae Adult
larvae larvae larvae
Poinsettia 1.33 ± 0.57 3.67 ± 1.15 5.33 ± 0.57 6.67 ± 0.57 6.33 ± 0.57 7 ± 0 ab 30.33 ± 0.57 bc
ab b a ab a
Canna 2±0a 5.5 ± 0.70 6±0a 7.5 ± 0.70 ab 7±0a 8±0a 36 ± 0.57 a
ab
Banana 1±0b 6.67 ± 0.57 7±0a 8±0a 7±0a 8±0a 37.67 ± 0.57 a
a
Fan palm 1±0b 3.67 ± 0.57 6.67 ± 0.57 7 ± 1 ab 7.33 ± 0.57 6±0b 31.67 ± 0.57 b
b a a
Ground 2±0a 0 0 0 0 0 0
nut
Coconut 1±0b 3.33 ± 0.57 6±1a 5.67 ± 0.57 b 6.67 ± 1.15 7 ± 1 ab 29.67 ± 0.57 c
b a

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.105.1 6
Nishantha et al. Utilizing Locally Isolated Parasitoid, Encarsia guadeloupae, (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), for
Biological Control of Coconut Whitefly, (Aleurodicus rugioperculatus), in Sri Lanka.

3.3. Field survey significantly lower in each location. This may be due to the
Field survey revealed that all the locations were severely usage of synthetic insecticides and the changes of the
infested with coconut whitefly. Natural parasitism level was climatic conditions.

Table 2: Average percentage of whitefly (A. rugioperculatus) and parasitoid (E. guadeloupae) population in Coconut
cultivations in selected locations
District Location % of whitefly % of parasitism
Gampaha Ganemulla 90.51 9.48
Panadura 89.47 10.52
Horana 85.07 3.05
Nabada -1 76.45 4.22
Nabada -2 81.06 1.1
Kaluthara
Gamagoda 75.97 4.68
Galpatha 77.25 2.79
Wadduwa 75.97 3.72
Wadduwa -2 82.46 0.97
Kolonnawa 91.53 8.46
Rathmalana 89.63 10.36
Katunayaka 88.59 11.4
Gammanpila 88.61 11.38
Wavita (Ganegoda) 90.98 9.01
Polgasowita 89.02 10.97
Katana 88.09 11.9
Aluthpola temple 83.83 10.2
Colombo Galthude 88.61 11.38
Aluthpola -Amandoluwa 91.48 8.51
Aluthpola -Kontharaduwa 92.5 7.5
Aluthpola -Nilpanagoda 88.89 11.11
Aluthpola – 87 Kosgolla 94.59 5.4
Aluthpola – Miriswellalanda 93.1 6.89
Aluthpola – Mahawatta 91.89 8.1
Aluthpola – Delgodalla 90.9 9.09
Aluthpola – 112 93.87 6.12
Marukwathura 91.13 8.86
Tholangamuwa 91.03 8.96
Nangalla 90.9 9.09
Kegalle Ibulgoda temple 93.89 6.1
Gamagedara 73.06 5.64
Devalegama -1 88.37 4.1
Devalegama -2 80.9 7.51

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.105.1 7
Nishantha et al. Utilizing Locally Isolated Parasitoid, Encarsia guadeloupae, (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), for
Biological Control of Coconut Whitefly, (Aleurodicus rugioperculatus), in Sri Lanka.

Devalegama -3 80.64 7.95

Devalegama -4 80.45 3.85
Devalegama -5 77.57 10.86
Devalegama -6 85.3 6.54
Devalegama -7 86 3.15
Devalegama -8 91.42 2.54
Devalegama -9 87.2 3.53
Devalegama -10 75.71 8.79
Devalegama -11 80.83 4.6
Devalegama -12 77.28 8.04
Ibulgasdeniya 87.45 3.99
Ibuldeniya 85.57 6.53
Halabada -1 92.51 6.3
Halabada -2 88.08 4.19
Halabada -3 86.52 4.5
Kundasale 91.56 8.43
Kandy FRI (Gannoruwa) 88.74 11.25
SCPPC(Gannoruwa) 92.85 7.14
Coconut Seedling Nursery 93.79 6.2
Vipulananelapuram 92.04 7.95
Thanamunei 89.28 10.71
Batticaloa
Meerakermy 88.15 11.84
Erawur 90.9 9.09
Pasikuda 97.15 2.84

The Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.225 and a p value parasitism to also increase. The behavioral response of E.
of 0.089 indicates a positive correlation between the guadeloupae involves more attraction to the whitefly
percentage of whitefly and the percentage of parasitism, but infesting host plants [7]. Therefore, natural parasitism level
the correlation is not statistically significant (Fig. 6). The of E. guadeloupae increase as the whitefly infestation
positive correlation suggests as the percentage of whitefly increase.
increases; there is a tendency for the percentage of natural

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.105.1 8
Nishantha et al. Utilizing Locally Isolated Parasitoid, Encarsia guadeloupae, (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), for
Biological Control of Coconut Whitefly, (Aleurodicus rugioperculatus), in Sri Lanka.

Scatterplot of % of whitefly vs % of natural parasitism

100

95

90
% of whitefly

85

80

75

70
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
% of natural parasitism

Fig 6: Relationship between Whitefly (A. rugioperculatus) and Parasitoid (E. guadeloupae) populations in Coconut
Cultivations in selected locations at the initial stage

3.4. Field release of parasitoids were gradually increase after the field release of parasitoids.
There is a significant difference between the percentage of It indicates that, E. guadeloupae has successfully
parasitism before field release and the after the field release established in whitefly infested coconut plantations with the
of parasitoids. Parasitoid population in coconut cultivations time.
Table 3: Percentage of parasitoid (E. guadeloupae) population in coconut cultivations at selected locations before and after
the field release of parasitoids
Location % of parasitism % of parasitism
(Before the 1st release) (After the final release)
Ganemulla 9.48 87.35
Panadura 10.52 83.82
Kolonnawa 8.46 83.82
Rathmalana 10.36 86.2
Katunayaka 11.4 72.41
Gammanpila 11.38 82.25
Wavita (Ganegoda) 9.01 71.18
Polgasowita 10.97 71.66
Katana 11.9 67.08
Aluthpola temple 10.2 83.83
Galthude 11.38 40.21
Aluthpola -Amandoluwa 8.51 70.64
Aluthpola -Kontharaduwa 7.5 56.66
Aluthpola -Nilpanagoda 11.11 72.47
Aluthpola - 87 Kosgolla 5.4 49.5
Aluthpola - Miriswellalanda 6.89 50.61

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.105.1 9
Nishantha et al. Utilizing Locally Isolated Parasitoid, Encarsia guadeloupae, (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), for
Biological Control of Coconut Whitefly, (Aleurodicus rugioperculatus), in Sri Lanka.

Aluthpola - Mahawatta 8.1 61.53

Aluthpola - Delgodalla 9.09 53.68
Aluthpola - 112 6.12 50.53
Marukwathura 8.86 82.08
Tholangamuwa 8.96 71.42
Nangalla 9.09 73.91
Kundasale 8.43 61.34
FRI (Gannoruwa) 11.25 78.56
SCPPC(Gannoruwa) 7.14 68.14
Coconut Seedling Nursery 6.2 71.65
Vipulananelapuram 7.95 76.92
Thanamunei 10.71 73.33
Meerakermy 11.84 69.83
Erawur 9.09 67.39
Pasikuda 2.84 48.33
Bopitiya 5.1 60.26

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Aluthpola -…
Aluthpola -…
Aluthpola -…

Aluthpola -…
Aluthpola -…
Aluthpola - 87…

Coconut Seedling…
Vipulananelapuram
Nangalla
Katana

Thanamunei
Galthude
Panadura

Bopitiya
Meerakermy
Erawur
Ganemulla

Gammanpila

Marukwathura

Kundasale

Pasikuda
Kolonnawa
Rathmalana
Katunayaka

Aluthpola - Delgodalla
Aluthpola temple

FRI (Gannoruwa)
SCPPC(Gannoruwa)
Polgasowita

Aluthpola - 112

Tholangamuwa
Wavita (Ganegoda)

Before 1st release After the final release

Fig 7: Percentage of parasitoid (E. guadeloupae) population in coconut cultivations at selected locations before and after
field release of parasitoids

Table 4: Average percentage of whitefly (A. rugioperculatus) and parasitoid (E. guadeloupae) population in coconut
cultivations at selected locations after the field release of parasitoids
% of parasitism after the field % of whitefly after the field
Location
release of parasitoids release of parasitoids
Ganemulla 87.35 12.65
Panadura 83.82 16.18

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.105.1 10
Nishantha et al. Utilizing Locally Isolated Parasitoid, Encarsia guadeloupae, (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), for
Biological Control of Coconut Whitefly, (Aleurodicus rugioperculatus), in Sri Lanka.

Kolonnawa 83.82 16.18

Rathmalana 86.2 13.8
Katunayaka 72.41 27.59
Gammanpila 82.25 17.75
Wavita (Ganegoda) 71.18 28.82
Polgasowita 71.66 28.34
Katana 67.08 32.92
Aluthpola temple 83.83 16.17
Galthude 40.21 59.79
Aluthpola -Amandoluwa 70.64 29.36
Aluthpola -Kontharaduwa 56.66 43.34
Aluthpola -Nilpanagoda 72.47 27.53
Aluthpola - 87 Kosgolla 49.5 50.5
Aluthpola - Miriswellalanda 50.61 49.39
Aluthpola - Mahawatta 61.53 38.47
Aluthpola - Delgodalla 53.68 46.32
Aluthpola - 112 50.53 49.47
Marukwathura 82.08 17.92
Tholangamuwa 71.42 28.58
Nangalla 73.91 26.09
Kundasale 61.34 38.66
FRI (Gannoruwa) 78.56 21.44
SCPPC(Gannoruwa) 68.14 31.86
Coconut Seedling Nursery 71.65 28.35
Vipulananelapuram 76.92 23.08
Thanamunei 73.33 26.67
Meerakermy 69.83 30.17
Erawur 67.39 32.61
Pasikuda 48.33 51.67
Bopitiya 60.26 39.74

Observed a perfect negative correlation (-1.000) between that, the adult stage of E. guadeloupae damages the larval
the percentage of parasitism and the percentage of whitefly stage of the whitefly. Here, the parasite sucks the essence of
after the field release of parasitoids (Fig. 8). The correlation the whitefly, which is mainly in the second larval stage and
is highly significant. It revealed that when there is an lays its eggs on it. As a result, the parasite population grows,
increase in parasitism, there is a corresponding tendency for and the whitefly population decreases over time.
a decrease in the percentage of whitefly. It is due to the fact

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.105.1 11
Nishantha et al. Utilizing Locally Isolated Parasitoid, Encarsia guadeloupae, (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), for
Biological Control of Coconut Whitefly, (Aleurodicus rugioperculatus), in Sri Lanka.

Scatterplot of % of parasitism vs % of whitefly

90

80

% of parasitism 70

60

50

40

10 20 30 40 50 60
% of whitefly

Fig 8: Relationship between whitefly (A. rugioperculatus) and parasitoid (E. guadeloupae) populations in coconut
cultivations after field release of parasitoids

Fig 9: Average percentage of whitefly (A. rugioperculatus) and parasitoid (E. guadeloupae) population in Coconut
cultivations in selected districts at different stages of release of parasitoids

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.105.1 12
Nishantha et al. Utilizing Locally Isolated Parasitoid, Encarsia guadeloupae, (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), for
Biological Control of Coconut Whitefly, (Aleurodicus rugioperculatus), in Sri Lanka.

The following graphs depict the percentage of population After the introduction of parasitoids, whitefly population
density of whitefly and its parasitoid throughout different exhibited a decline to 24% by the end of the 4th release stage,
stages of field release of parasitoids (Fig.9). It is noteworthy while the parasitoid population increased to 74%. This trend
that a consistent trend is observed in each district, where the of whitefly population reduction with an increase in
whitefly population undergoes a gradual reduction parasitoid population can be observed in all other districts.
concurrent with an increase in parasitoid population. Ultimately, whitefly populations decreased to 24%, 15%,
In Kaluthara district, the initial whitefly and parasitoid 23%, 11%, 22% in Kaluthara, Colombo, Gampaha, Kegalle,
populations were recorded at 79% and 10%, respectively. and Batticaloa districts, respectively.

Fig 10: Correlation between population of whitefly and parasitoids in selected locations at different stages of release of
parasitoids

There is a perfect negative correlation between the of successful control of the A. rugioperculatus populations
percentage of parasitism and the percentage of whitefly through the application of E. guadeloupae.
after the field release of parasitoids in each location
revealed that when there is an increase in parasitism (Fig.
IV. CONCLUSION
10), there is a corresponding tendency for a decrease in the
percentage of whitefly. These findings indicate possibilities The parasitic wasp, E. guadeloupae, identified from the
natural environment, can be successfully mass reared in the
laboratory and release into invaded areas to effectively

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.105.1 13
Nishantha et al. Utilizing Locally Isolated Parasitoid, Encarsia guadeloupae, (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), for
Biological Control of Coconut Whitefly, (Aleurodicus rugioperculatus), in Sri Lanka.

control coconut whitefly infestations. Both adult parasitoids Agricultural Journal, 103, 349–353. Available at:
of E. guadeloupae and parasitized pupae-cards can be used https://doi.org/10.29321/maj.10.001047.
for field release to control the whitefly populations. This [10] Sundararaj, R. and Selvaraj, K. (2017). Invasion of rugose
spiraling whitefly, Aleurodicus rugioperculatus Martin
control strategy involves releasing the parasitoids five times
(Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae): a potential threat to coconut in
at two-week intervals. Therefore, this parasitoid has proven
India. Phytoparasitica, 45(1), 71–74. Available at:
to be effective in controlling existing whitefly damage in https://doi.org/10.1007/s12600-017-0567-0.
coconut cultivations in Sri Lanka. [11] Taravati, S., Mannion, C. and Osborne, L.S. (2013).
Management of Rugose spiraling whitefly (Aleurodicus
rugioperculatus) in South Florida Landscape. Proc. Florida
REFERENCES State Horticultural Society, 126, 276-278.
[1] Chakravarthy, A.K., Kumar, K.P., Shridar, V., Prasannakumar,
N.R., Nitin, K.S., Nagaraju, D.K., Shashidhara, G.C.,
Sudhakara, T.M., Chandrasekar, G.S. and Rammi Reddy, P.V.
(2017). Incidence, hosts and potential areas for invasion by
Rugose Spiraling Whitefly, Aleurodicus rugioperculatus
Martin (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in India,: 41–49. Available
at: www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/4141,.
[2] Elango, K. and Nelson, S.J. (2020). Morphometrics, seasonal
incidence, behavior and natural parasitization of Aphelinid
parasitoid, Encarsia guadeloupae Viggiani (Hymenoptera:
Aphelinidae) on Rugose spiralling whitefly. Pest Management
in Horticultural Ecosystems, 26(1), 69. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-4541.2020.00011.9.
[3] Evans, G.A. (2008). The whiteflies (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae)
of the world and their host plants and natural enemies.
Available from: http://keys.lucidcentral.org/keys/v3/ whitefly/
PDF_PwP% 20ETC/world-whitefly- catalog-Evans.pdf
[4] Francis, A.W., Stocks, I.C., Smith, T.R., Boughton, A.J.,
Mannion, C.M. and Osborne, L.S. (2016). Host plants and
natural enemies of rugose spiraling whitefly (Hemiptera:
Aleyrodidae) in Florida. Fl. Entomology, 99, 150–153.
[5] Hernández-Suárez and Aguiar, A. (2003). Parasitoids of
whiteflies (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae, eulophidae,
platygastridae; hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) from the
macaronesian archipelagos of the canary islands, madeira and
the Azores, Systematics and Biodiversity. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477200002001007.
[6] Rao, N.B.V., Roshan, D.R., Rao, G.K. and Ramanandam, G.
(2018). A review on rugose spiralling whitefly, Aleurodicus
rugioperculatus martin (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in India.
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 7(5), 948–
953.
[7] Saranya, M. and Kennedy, J.S. (2022). Behavioural Response
of Parasitoid Encarsia Guadeloupae Viggiani To Infested
Host Plants of Rugose Spiraling Whitefly Aleurodicus
Rugioperculatus Martin. Indian Journal of Entomology, 84(1),
34–37. Available at: https://doi.org/10.55446/IJE.2021.336.
[8] Selvaraj, K., Sundararaj, R., Venkatesan, T., Ballal, C. R.,
Jalali, S. K., Ankita, G., and Mrudula, H. K., (2016). Potential
natural enemies of the invasive rugose spiraling whitefly,
Aleurodicus rugioperculatus Martin in India. Journal of
Biological Control, 30(4), 236- 239.
[9] Sirinivasan, T, Saravanan, P.A., Josephrajkumar, A.,
Rajamanickam, K., Sridharan, S., David, P.M.M., Natarajan,
N. and Shoba, N. (2016). Invasion of the Rugose spiralling
whitefly, Aleurodicus rugioperculatus Martin (Hemiptera:
Aleyrodidae) in Pollachi tract of Tamil Nadu, India. Madras

ISSN: 2456-1878 (Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech.)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab.105.1 14