|Osborne, Lance - UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA|
|Ludwig, Scott - TEXAS A&M|
|Schmale, Lin - SOC. OF AMERICAN FLORISTS|
Submitted to: Greenhouse Grower Magazine
Publication Type: Popular Publication
Publication Acceptance Date: August 5, 2005
Publication Date: September 5, 2005
Citation: Osborne, L.S., Ludwig, S.W., Schmale, L. 2006. Q-biotype whitefly: A time for action. Greenhouse Grower Magazine. p. 70-76. Technical Abstract: Grower’s who have been watching the news are aware that, earlier this spring, an agricultural frenzy threatened to develop following the discovery of the Q-Biotype whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) by Dr. Tim Dennehy at the University of Arizona. The cotton industry in Arizona and California was alarmed, Arizona and California issued quarantine notices (subsequently revoked) and worry threatened to predominate. However, by May, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had announced it will not consider the “Q-Biotype” a regulated pest. It is unlikely that the individual states will take regulatory action – as long as the industry is working together to avoid problems. As a result, a National Ad Hoc Whitefly Taskforce was formed and is facilitated by APHIS with members from industry, regulatory agencies and research affiliations. With the discovery of the Q-Biotype whitefly, growers need to pay particular attention to whiteflies that appear to be resistant to normal controls. Growers that notice resistance should submit a sample for biotype determination. Vigilance is important. Growers should practice good IPM and review pesticide rotation schedules ensuring rotations incorporate different modes of action. The detection of Q-Biotype in several states demonstrates two important points. First, growers already understand the importance of monitoring, testing and using the appropriate treatment. Secondly, the process can be anonymous and not result in regulation or quarantine.