See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260677339

HANDLING OF COCOA BLACK ANTS AS A

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT AGAINST COCOA
POD BORER IN...

Conference Paper · July 2007

CITATIONS READS

5 241

2 authors:

Saripah Bakar Azhar Ismail

Malaysian Cocoa Board Malaysian Cocoa Board
21 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 30 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Saripah Bakar on 12 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 HANDLING OF COCOA BLACK ANTS
AS A BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT AGAINST COCOA POD BORER
IN MONOCOCOA ECOSYSTEM

Saripah, B1. and I. Azhar2

1
Cocoa Research and Development Center, Malaysian Cocoa Board
P.O.Box 30, Jalan Sg. Dulang, 36307 Sungai Sumun, Perak Darul Ridzuan
E-mail: sari@koko.gov.my
2
Malaysian Cocoa Board, 5th and 6th Floor, Wisma SEDCO, Locked Bag 211,
88999 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.

In Proceedings 2007 Conference on Plant Plantation Commodities. 3-4 July 2007, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia. Pp 48 -54.

ABSTRACT

Cocoa black ant (CBA), Dolichoderus thoracicus is the dominant ant species in the
cocoa-coconut ecosystem and is mutually associated with the cocoa mealy bug,
Cataenococcus hispidus, also the dominant mealybug species in the ecosystem. The use
of CBA in controlling cocoa insect pests especially mirids and the cocoa pod borer,
Conopomorpha cramerella have been discussed by earlier researchers. Efficacy of CBA
in controlling the CPB is extremely viable particularly when sufficient populations of
CBA and cocoa mealy bug are available. Previous studies showed that cocoa planted
under coconuts with a high population of CBA, had lower CPB infestations. Helopeltis
and rodent pest studies also indicated that CBA is practically absent in monococoa
systems. In this study, an attempt to introduce CBA in monococoa ecosystems is
investigated. Two monoculture cocoa plots were selected. Augmentations of ant nests at
Jengka, Pahang and Chuping, Perlis commenced in July 2003, where the former plots
were previously free from CBA and the latter plots harbor very low CBA population. In
both blocks, CPB infestation were high at the beginning of ant nests augmentation period
and the Average Damage Severity Index (ADSI) recorded was 1.1 at Jengka and
categorized as slight to light infested plot; while ADSI values at Chuping were 2.92 and
categorized as light to medium infested plot. After 30 months of ant introduction and
with an average of four augmentations per year, the ADSI values reduced to 0.0435 at
Jengka and 0.0749 at Chuping Perlis. Percentage of infested pods also reduced in these
plots, i.e. from 12.333% to 0.188% at the plots in Jengka and from 58.33% to almost 0%
at Chuping. Both the plots categorized as healthy to light infested plots and the
effectiveness of CBA as a biological control agent against CPB infestation in monococoa
ecosystems was clearly demonstrated.

Keywords : Cocoa, Cocoa Pests, Cocoa Pod borer, Conopomorpha cramerella,

Dolichoderus thoracicus

48
INTRODUCTION

Ants have a great potential to be used as a biological control agents against the cocoa pod
borer (CPB), Conopomorpha cramerella Snellen where the latter is believed to cause
substantial yield loss (Azhar et.al., 2000). In Malaysia, cocoa is closely associated with
cocoa black ant (CBA), Dolichoderus thoracicus Smith which is in abundance especially
in cocoa-coconut ecosystem, mostly in the coastal belt of Perak, Selangor and Johor
(Azhar, 1985,1989). Cocoa is planted commonly under shade trees such as Gliricidia,
Albizia, Leucaena and coconut, which favors for the CBA. The omnipresence of CBA in
cocoa-coconut ecosystem is largely due to its symbiotic relationship with cocoa
mealybug (CM) Cataenococcus hispidus (Azhar et.al., 2000). A previous study has
shown that cocoa planted under coconut have high CBA populations with relatively low
infestations of CPB and Helopeltis (Azhar, 1985). Occurrence of favorable environment
for both CBA and CM can lessen infestations of CPB (Azhar, 1992; Ho, 1994; Wong and
Kuang, 2000) and cocoa mirid, Helopeltis spp. (Giesberger, 1983; Khoo & Ho, 1992).

CPB is the most devastative cocoa pests in Malaysia, and a high infestation rate is
consistently associated with the absence or decreasing number of CBA in cocoa fields.
Appropriate environmental conditions such as availability of nesting sites, canopy
coverage and optimal shade levels highly influenced the development rates of CBA
population in cocoa-coconut fields. Cocoa planted under coconut usually harbor high ant
populations and ensures the potential of CBA as a bio-indicator of healthy cocoa-coconut
agro-ecosystems. CBA found predominantly in well-managed cocoa and coconut agro-
ecosystems due to their nesting habits of preferring to utilize coconut crowns as their
main nests. Large amount of debris usually found in a coconut crowns serve as suitable
nesting sites and natural habitats for CBA (Azhar and Musa, 1988). Coconut palms are
useful as a shelter owing to their large fronds and leaflets that are suitable for CBA
aggregation.

CBA is evidently absent from monoculture due to inappropriate conditions especially

lack of nesting sites for aggregation as reported by Azhar (1989). Ho & Khoo (1997) also
reported that CBA is absent in many cocoa areas. Most of the previous researches
conducted on cocoa-coconut agro-ecosystems, and very limited studies on cocoa
monoculture planting system. This study conducted to assess the efficacy of CBA as a
biological control agent against CPB in cocoa monoculture ecosystem.

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

Two experimental sites selected for the studies, namely Jengka plot and Chuping plot.
Both blocks were cocoa monoculture plots, with Gliricidia as a shade tree at PPPK
Jengka, Pahang and no shade trees planted at Chuping. Although no shade trees planted
at Chuping, the cocoa tree canopy jointed together and form a shade that minimize the
light penetration on the ground. PPPK Jengka is under Malaysian Cocoa Board (MCB),
where as Chuping Plot is under Perlis Plantation Berhad (PPB), a private estate situated

49
at Chuping, Perlis. CBA is absent in the former plot and are indigenous but unevenly
distributed at the latter plot.

The Ant Source Farm situated at Jasin, Melaka that is about 4 hours from Jengka.
Placement of empty ant nests at Jasin started on July 2003, were occupied and ready to
transfer at Jengka Plot in September the same year. Artificial ant nests made from 12” x
18” plastic bags stuffed with approximately 200gram of dried cocoa leaves and hanged at
cocoa trees with CBA colonies appeared on chosen trees. After 5-6 weeks, colonized
artificial ant nests transferred to the study plots. Approximately 80-100 colonized
artificial nests transferred and then hanged at alternate trees and rows in each occasion of
transfer until end of 2004.

Placement of empty ant nests in Chuping started on May 2003 in order to enhance the
number of existing populations of CBA. Approximately 100-130 nests were hanged
every 2 months. No canopy pruning was done while fertilization were on schedule and is
under PPB supervision.

Data collected undertaken every 2 months at the same date with augmentation of ant
nests. Ripe pods in each plots were harvested and split to determine the damage
severities. Damage categories, Average Damage Severity Index (ADSI) were determined
based on the percentage of beans inextricable from the pods according to Azhar et al.,
(1995). Percentage of CPB infestation also collected in both plots.

Score Code Description

0 Hty Healthy (no larva penetrated the sclerotic layer (SCL) and all beans
extractable)
1 Slt Slight damage (Larvae penetrated the SCL with sign of infestation inside
the pod, such as the frass and cell growth on the inner endodermis, but all
beans are extractable)
2 Lit Light damage (<20% of he beans are unextractable)
3 Mod Moderate damage (21-50% of the beans are unextractable)
4 Hvy Heavy damage (>50% of the beans are unextractable)

Subsequently, the Average Damage Severity Index (ADSI) were calculated using the
formula:

[(0xn1) + (1xn2) + (2xn3) + (3xn4) + (4xn5)]/N, where

n1 : number of pods in category 0 (Healthy)

n2 : number of pods in category 1 (Slight)
n3 : number of pods in category 2 (Light)
n4 : number of pods in category 3 (Medium)
n5 : number of pods in category 4, (Heavy) and
N : total number of pods examined

50
RESULTS

Jengka Plot

Generally the establishment and spread of the CBA in PPPK Jengka was slow compared
to CBA in Chuping plot. Low number of cocoa pods influenced the lag in the spread of
CBA at PPPK Jengka at early phase of the study. Data collection only started on May
2004, although augmentation of CBA in this plot started in September 2003. No ripen
pods were available for data collection due to premature cocoa trees itself. Sometimes
CBA failed to attend the CM on the cocoa shoots. However, repeated ant augmentations
were undertaken until the first data collection on May 2004.

With low numbers of cocoa pod available during the early establishment of CBA in
Jengka plot, simultaneous augmentation induce CBA and CM population were found
concentrated only at cocoa shoots. Slow distribution may also arise due to canopy
excessive openness, greater exposure to sunlight, insufficient number of augmented ant
nests and adaptation of CBA at a new location. However, when the pods developed
subsequently, CBA started to attend CM on cocoa cherelles until cocoa pods ripened.

Percentage of CPB infestation at the first data collection was 12.33%, and was low due to
simultaneous augmentation of CBA, although pod development has not yet started. At
this moment, CM and CBA usually found at cocoa shoots. When cherelle started to
developed, CBA shifted form shoots and started attending the cherelle until pod ripe.
Percentages of CPB infestation gradually decrease throughout 2004 as seen in Figure 1.
Heavy pruning on May 2005 increase infestations in June, July and September 2005,
probably due to the environment changes in the plot, especially canopy openness thus
enhance exposure to sunlight. Most of the nests were broken and damaged during the
pruning. CBA had quickly shifted to other areas as a response to environmental change
and lack of nesting sites. This phenomenon was noted again, when heavy pruning was
done in March 2006. However, continuous augmentation after heavy pruning enhance the
CBA population again, and its effect seen with low CPB infestation in September 2005 to
January 2006 and from July to December 2006.

A decreased in ADSI values show that CBA was effective in reducing CPB infestation
and increased the number of healthy pods (Figure 1). ADSI values during the first
sampling occasion were 1.1, which categorized the plot as Slight to Light Infested Pod.
ADSI values have similar trends with infestation percentages, which decrease throughout
the study; and increased subsequent to heavy pruning. After heavy pruning, ADSI values
increased for the next three sampling dates; decrease then after until the next heavy
pruning in March 2006. Similar trends occurred when ADSI values decreased from 0.15
to 0.0435 and the plot considered as Healthy Infested Plot at the end of 2006.

51
 Percentage of CPB infestation and ADSI Values at PPPK Jengka
1.2 May 2004 - December 2006 14

1
12

Heavy Pruning

Percentage of CPB infestation

10
0.8
ADSI values

8
0.6

0.4
4

0.2
2

0 0

6
5

6
5

5
4

6
4

5
4

6
00
00

00
00

00
00

00

00

00

00

00
00

00
00

00

00

00
'2
l '2

l '2
'2
'2

'2

'2

'2
'2

'2
'2

'2

'2

'2

'2
'2

'2
ay

ac

ei
n

n
ay
pt

pt

ct
ct

ct
ec

ov

ec
Ju

Ju
g

Ju

Ja

M
Au
M

M
O
O

O
Se

Se
M
D

D
Month ADSI Percentage (%)

Figure 1. Percentage of CPB infestation and ADSI values at Jengka plot.

Chuping plot

The CBA population in Chuping, Perlis was very low during early study and insufficient
in controlling CPB. CBA and CM were commonly found in several trees especially in the
cocoa canopy. No CBA trails were available on the ground, there were very few nesting
sites built up with cocoa litter and only a few cocoa pods were attended by CBA and CM.
However, after several augmentations of empty ant nests and introduction of CM, the
strength of the ant colony increased with strong foraging trails gradually noted over time.

Figure 2 indicate the decreasing trends on percentages of CPB infestation and ADSI
values. During the initial introduction, the percentage of CPB infestation was nearly 60%,
which was very serious where more than half of the yield was lost. ADSI values reached
2.92, categorized as Light to Medium Infested Plot. After simultaneous introduction of
empty ant nests and CM, decreasing in number of infested pods and ADSI occurred
throughout the study. The last sampling occasions on December 2006, had ADSI value of
zero and the block was considered as Healthy Infested Plot, which means nearly all pods
are free off CPB infestation.

52
 Percentage of CPB infestation and ADSI values at Chuping, Perlis
May 2003 - December 2006
3.5 70

3 60

Percentage of CPB infestation

2.5 50
ADSI values

2 40

1.5 30

1 20

0.5 10

0 0
4
4
3

05

06

6
3

06
3

5
4

6
06
00
00

00
00

00

00

00
00
00

00
00

00

00

00
20
20

20

20
'2

'2
l '2
'2

'2

'2
'2
'2

'2
'2

'2

'2

'2
'2

n'
b'

b'
ec

ec
pt
n
ay

ay

r'
pt

pt
ar

ct
ec

ec
Ju

Ja
Fe

Fe
Ju

Ap
Au

Se
D

D
O
M
Se

Se
M

D
Month ADSI values CPB infestation

Figure 2. Percentage of CPB infestation and ADSI values at Chuping plot.

DISCUSSION

The abundance of mealybugs was higher at Chuping which had higher shade intensity,
where most of cocoa tree canopies overlapped and thus decrease light penetration. Cocoa
mealybugs were found feeding on pods and shoots in both the plots. Sometimes CBA
found failed to attend CM. Simultaneous introduction of CM was crucial especially
during introduction of CBA at a new plot. It is an important key factor affecting the
population built up and continued survival of CBA and CM in monoculture whereas in
cocoa-coconut agro-ecosystem existing coconut palms are the main nests of CBA.

Abundance of CBA in these cocoa plots was highly depending on the survival of CM that
secretes honeydew as the main food source for CBA. Sustenance of CM population
during the drought season is crucial, especially when the availability of pods is very low.
However, temporary decline in CBA population may occur in attributed to the removal of
CM from the plots especially when ripe pods harvested. To solve this problem, growers
can leave the cocoa pod peduncle with CM during harvesting to allow CM to move to
other pods adjacent to harvested pod. This ensures the sustainability of CM on a
particular tree.

A higher number of colonized and empty ant nests was introduced at Jengka compared to
Chuping because of zero ant population noted at the former. Continuous augmentations

53
are necessary, while at Chuping plot, only empty artificial ant nests were augmented to
enhance the existing ant population. A lesser number of artificial nests introduced at
Chuping throughout the study. However, in both the plots, replacing of damage and
deteriorated artificial nests are crucial to serve as new nesting sites for CBA. New
artificial ant nests are compulsory in replacing damage nests due to pod harvesting and
deteriorated old nests as reaction to environmental changes.

After several augmentations of new ant nests and introduction of CM, the colony strength
increased with strong foraging trails noted gradually over time. Transient nests on the
ground and leaf canopy, ant trails on the ground are features in the Chuping plot.
Foraging trails on the ground and cocoa trees, also emerged from the artificial ant nests
especially when the population of CBA is high.

Heavy pruning affected CBA population severely and plays a vital role in reducing CBA
population, as seen in Jengka. In order to resolve this problem, tree canopies should be
allowed to overlap so that temperature reduction under the canopy can occurred. It also
reduces excessive openness and direct light penetration on the ground. Proper pruning
technique must be implementing in order to reduce the number of damage ant nests.
Maintenance of suitable condition especially favorable environment is important to
ensure sustaining of CBA and CM in monoculture ecosystems.

Presence of CBA particularly in large numbers is effective in controlling CPB infestation.

The effectiveness of CBA as a biological control agent against CPB can be enhanced by
increasing the number of artificial ant nests even with artificial nests in all cocoa trees.
Introductions both CBA and CM are time consuming, but it is technically feasible as the
costs is lower than chemical control over a longer period (Azhar, Alias and Meriam,
2000).

CONCLUSION

A low percentage of CPB infestation with low ADSI values throughout this study shows
the efficacy of CBA in controlling CPB. Although the absence of coconut which is the
main criterion in enhancing CBA population, several approaches ensure successful
introduction of CBA in monococoa ecosystem. Simultaneous augmentation of colonized
artificial ant nests, introduction of empty ant nests to replace deteriorated and broken
nests after heavy pruning, continuous augmentations of CM and leaving the cocoa
peduncle with CM at the tree during harvesting are crucial in pertaining CBA as a
promising biological control agent against CPB infestation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We thank Roslan Saadi, Abd. Shukor Mukni, and staff of Entomological Laboratory at
Malaysian Cocoa Board, Research and Development Center Hilir Perak, Malaysia for
their assistance in these studies. Also grateful thanks to Mr. Nik Aziz Nik Mat from
Malaysian Cocoa Board, Research and Development Center Jengka, Malaysia, Mr.

54
Hashmi Hashim and Mr. Sharif from Perlis Plantation Berhad (PPB), for allowing us to
use the study plots and their hospitality.

REFERENCES

Azhar, I. (1985). Natural and cultural control in the management of selected cocoa pests.
Proc. Sem. Integrated Pest management in Malaysia (Eds. B.S. Lee, W.H. Loke and
K.L. Heong). Kuala Lumpur, MAPPS. Pp 225-267.

Azhar, I. (1989). Towards the development of integrated pest management of Helopeltis

in Malaysia. MARDI Research Journal. 17: 55-68.

Azhar, I. (1992). Role of black ants in CPB natural control. MAPPS Newsletter. 16: 36-
37.

Azhar, I. (1995). An overview on the management of key insect pests of cocoa with
major emphasis on the Cocoa Pod Borer, Conopomorpha cramerella. The Planter
71. (835): 469-480.

Azhar, I., Nur Samhanim A.J and S.T.S. Hasan. (2000). Variations in colony strength and
local foraging pattern of the Cocoa Black Ant, Dolichoderus thoracicus, in cocoa-
coconut ecosystem. Proceedings of INCOPED 3rd International Seminar. Malaysian
Cocoa Board, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. 16-17 October 2000. Pp 33-43.

Azhar, I., A. Alias and M.Y. Meriam. (2000). Research on the Cocoa Pod Borer in
Malaysia. Proceedings of INCOPED 3rd International Seminar. Malaysian Cocoa
Board, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. 16-17 October 2000. Pp 105-113.

Azhar, I. and Musa, M.J. (1988). Studies on the faunal and floral communities in the
debris of the coconut crown. Proceedings of the National Coconut Conference, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia. 1982. (Serdang, MARDI).

Giesberger, G. (1983). Biological control of the Helopeltis pest of cocoa in Java. Pp. 91-
180 in Toxopeus, H. & Wessel, P.C (eds) Cocoa Research in Indonesia 1900-1950,
Vol. 2. Wageningen, American Cocoa Research Institute and International Office of
Cocoa and Chocolate.

Ho, C.T. (1994). Relationship between the black cocoa ant Dolichoderus thoracicus
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) abundance and cocoa pod borer Conopomorpha
cramerella (Lepidoptera: Gracillaridae) damage in a cocoa plantation. In Rajan, A. &
Ibrahim, Y.B (Eds) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Plant
Protection in the Tropics. Malaysian Plant Protection Society, Kuala
Lumpur.(Extended abstract). Pp 214-215.

Ho, C.T and Khoo, K.C. (1997). Partners in biological control of cocoa pests: Mutualism
between Dolichoderus thoracicus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Cataenococcus

55
 hispidus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research. 87: 461-
470.

Khoo, K.C & Ho, C.T. (1992). The influence of Dolichoderus thoracicus (Hymenoptera:
Formicidae) on losses due to Helopeltis theivora (Heteroptera: Miridae), black pod
disease, and mammalian pests in cocoa in Malaysia. Bulletin of Entomological
Research. 82: 485-491.

Wong, Y.F and Kuang, L.F. (2000). Preliminary results of Cocoa Pod Borer
(Conopomorpha cramerella). Control by Black Cocoa Ant (Dolichoderus sp.) in
Teck Guan Cocoa Estate, Tawau. Proceedings of INCOPED 3rd International
Seminar. Malaysian Cocoa Board, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. 16-17 October 2000. Pp 44-
49.

56

View publication stats