Because of the recent classification of C. cupressi as a species complex composed of two separate species, C. cupressi and C. cupressivora, identifying the geographical range of the specimen is the most accurate way to determine classification. The two species range's only overlap in the United Kingdom. Watson et al. (1999) states that, \"In C. cupressivora apterae from Britain and western Europe, 85% have two (or occasionally one) sclerite on abdomen II, whereas only 10% of C. cupressi sensu lato specimens from Britain possess any sclerites on abdomen II, and fewer than 1% possess paired sclerites in this position.\"
Principal source: Cypress aphid, Cinara cupressi (O'Neil, 1998)
Compiler: National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) & IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG)
Review: Dr. Aida Baldini, Chief of National Forest Pests Program CONAF-Chile & Dr. Jaime Aguayo CONAF-Chile
Publication date: 2005-06-25
Recommended citation: Global Invasive Species Database (2024) Species profile: Cinara cupressi. Downloaded from http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/species.php?sc=121 on 08-12-2024.
Watson et al. (1999) report that C. cupressi (Buckton) have seriously damaged commercial and ornamental plantings and native stands of Cupressus, Juniperus, Widdringtonia and other Cupressaceae in Africa, Italy, Jordan, Yemen, Mauritius and Colombia. Kenya, has the largest area of industrial forest plantations of Cupressus lusitanica (planted on about 86,000 ha) out of this, about 5,153 ha have been infested by the aphid to variable damage levels ranging from slight to severe (Mwangi, 2002). Mwangi (2002) state that, \"Population density of Cinara cupressi is highest during the hot, dry season and lowest during the season of heavy rains. The decline in population density results in some recovery of damaged trees.\"
Chemical: Treatments containing Pirimicarb (Pyrimor), a product which has a low toxic level for humans and other insects have been identified to combat C. cupressi. The author states that for the treatments to succeed, the first aphid colonies that settle on the tree after hibernation (this takes place by the month of March in Italy) should be primarily targeted. Later treatments are always less successful and sometimes useless if carried out after the appearance of the withered areas. The treatment depends on the presence of the aphid which can be detected by shaking the branches so that it falls onto a white cloth placed underneath the tree. The success of the treatment also depends on spraying all the foliage, above all the internal branches. The author suggests that it is best to wait before felling as even badly damaged trees have often known to recover through the growth of adventitious buds (Panconesi, Undated). The Royal Horticultural Society (2004) suggests, \"Spraying in early summer at the first sign of an attack to prevent damage occurring. Suitable products contain imidacloprid (Bio Provado Ultimate Bug Killer Concentrate), bifenthrin (Scotts Bug Clear, Doff All-In-One Garden Pest Killer or Bio Sprayday Greenfly Killer Plus). They observe that it is often difficult to spray large hedges thoroughly and damage will occur when the aphid is abundant. Though slow damaged hedges are known to recover. Mwangi (2002) reports on testing the using of high-volume back-mounted warm fog generators. The author states that, \"Results show that fog generators reduced the man hours for spraying by two thirds. The fog, which is a carrier of active ingredients, rises to the top of the crown and drifts to cover all portions of the tree. Motorised sprayers need a lot of water and spray droplets cannot reach the tops of tall trees. The author observes that, \"Soil applications of systemic pesticides have failed to produce good results.\"\r\n
Biological: Examples of natural enemies that may be explored for use as biocontrol agents are Pauesis cupressobii and P. juniperorum (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), which have been found attacking Cinara juniperi. Another example is Aphidus sp, a parasitoid, that has been found attacking C. cupressi in Germany (Mwangi, 2002) .
Kamunya et al. (1997) conducted a study in which Cupressus lusitanica seedlings from open-pollinated seeds of 18 families were inoculated with day-old first instar C. cupressi. The authors found that some C. lusitanica are resistant to the aphid, and they also typically produce resistant progeny. Orondo and Day (1994) quanitifed damage to C. lusitanica from C. cupressi in Kenya. Damage for each of the 603 trees was scored on the five point scale on six occasions. The authors found that damage decreased over the period of the study. The authors conclude that, \"The data indicate the need for careful monitoring of stands before a decision to clear fell is made, particularly as some trees initially in the highest damage category were observed to recover. These observations should be repeated in younger trees and in different areas.\"