This review of research and field experience runs long, so it’s also available as a PDF here. The original article is here. For readers who enjoy the deep dive, sources and links are provided at the bottom for further details.

Over the past two years, understanding of Thrips parvispinus (Tp) in North American ornamental production has moved from killing thrips to managing a species. In 2024, Tp was an exotic pest managed with tactics borrowed from Western flower thrips (WFT). In 2026, it has its own biology and its own program. This brief traces that shift through research, Extension guidance, company programs, and interviews with technical advisors who work with affected growers.

• Part A: the pest itself.

• Part B: how Tp travels in live plant tissue.

• Parts C through E: management by time horizon.

  • Immediate: denying entry and detecting infestation within a week.

  • Short haul: one to four weeks for near-finished crops, hot spots, and outbreaks.

  • Long haul: background programs for crops grown out over months.

• Part F: how the advice changed and where to find it. 

Part A. The pest itself

A pest of its own

In 2024, most guidance for Tp in North American greenhouses was adapted from programs for WFT, Frankliniella occidentalis. Two years of research and field experience have overturned that approach. Tp differs from WFT in where it feeds and how it behaves around predators (Rodríguez et al. 2026, deHaan 2026). A WFT program cannot simply be carried over.

Field advisors agree. Heidi Doering, the national ornamental specialist at Koppert, has worked Tp cases from California to New Hampshire. “This one’s much more nuanced, and it works on a different part of the plant,” she said (Doering, interview).

Extension traces the same arc. Sarah Jandricic of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness (OMAFA) has documented the move from a 2024 rotation guide built for resistance management to a 2026 mandevilla program built around propagation and aimed at the eggs and larvae arriving in cuttings (Jandricic and Colley 2024, Jandricic 2026a). The premise changed, not just the products.

Leaves, not flowers

WFT is a flower pest; Tp concentrates on foliage. In greenhouse sweet pepper, only about 5.5% of Tp were in flowers (Rodríguez et al. 2026). Florida pepper observations place adults and larvae in growing points and young leaf folds, spreading to buds and lower leaves as plants mature (Vavilapalli et al. 2026). On mandevilla, even a few Tp can severely damage the growing tips, the tissue the crop needs to develop and trellis (deHaan 2026).

In anthurium, Chris Anzell, a technical advisor with Koppert, finds Tp in rolled spathes and leaf folds, beyond sprays and predators. “There are some really good spots for them to hide,” he noted (Anzell, interview).

Scouting flowers first underestimates Tp (Rodríguez et al. 2026), and plant tapping misses larvae, which cling to foliage (deHaan 2026). Start at growing tips and expanding leaves, checking both surfaces.

Life cycle, temperature, and spread

The clearest new biology concerns temperature. In a Florida population, Tp developed between 17C and 32C (63F to 90F), performed best near 27C (81F) with a 12.8-day life cycle, failed to hatch at 12C (54F), and died after five days at 5C (41F) (Reyes-Arauz et al. 2026).

The same study found that unmated females produce males (arrhenotokous parthenogenesis), so one female on a cutting can start a population. Larvae pupate about 2.5 cm (1 in.) into the growing medium, beyond foliar sprays but within reach of substrate treatments. Tp survives poorly beyond 24 hours off leaf tissue (Reyes-Arauz et al. 2026), so it spreads by short hops or on plants, people, and equipment (Vavilapalli et al. 2026). Where it arrived on a single crop, Anzell saw that “it really stayed in the epicenter for a while” (Anzell, interview).

Cold helps Northern outdoor production but does not prevent breeding indoors. Heated greenhouses, shipping, and retail spaces shelter Tp, and Extension at Michigan State University (MSU) frames the Northern problem as annual introduction plus protected culture (Splawski and Jubenville 2025). At a large Midwest operation where Tp arrived on imported plants in 2023, it became resident, spread to neighboring crops, and persists year-round under glass. “It’s on site now and it’s not going away,” Doering observed (Doering, interview; Anzell, interview). The Northern concern is what breeds inside.

An aggressive pest, shaped by its host plant

Tp fights back. Preliminary Ontario work found it grows more combative and faster around the predatory mite Amblyseius swirskii (deHaan 2026). “It flips its tail up, and it has defense mechanisms, more so than the Western flower thrips does,” Doering said (Doering, interview). This shapes predator choice (Part E).

The host plant may change the pest. Orius insidiosus ate about 20% fewer larvae and adults reared on mandevilla than on bean, and the mandevilla-fed thrips showed metabolic differences (deHaan 2026). The work has so far been reported only in an Extension summary, and the mechanism is unknown.

Mandevilla is also a puzzle. Only about 40% of Tp survived on it, versus 75% on bean, yet it is where ornamental damage concentrates, because small populations injure the growing tip (deHaan 2026). Why a poor host suffers so much remains open.

New findings on virus transmission and flight

Tp is now an experimentally confirmed virus vector. First-instar larvae acquired groundnut bud necrosis virus (GBNV) and adults transmitted it, with 10 adults per plant reaching 86.7% transmission (Sharanya et al. 2025). The European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) now lists GBNV as a known Tp association and melon yellow spot virus as a potential one (EPPO 2026). GBNV is not a North American floriculture concern, but Extension pages calling Tp a non-vector are now out of date.

Flight now has a clock. In Ontario greenhouses, adults flew mostly between 2:00 and 6:00 p.m. and favored the sun-facing side of cards (deHaan 2026), a result Doering called “something fairly new” (Doering, interview). It matters most for spray timing (Part D).

Part B. How Tp travels

Live tissue, traced through the supply chain

“I don’t look at it as regionality as much as I do of plant species,” said Phil Gerry, a technical advisor with Koppert (Gerry, interview). The documented cases bear him out: Tp flows outward from common source points through the plant trade. In the final round of a San Diego County garden-center survey, October 2025 through January 2026, all 21 stores sampled carried Tp, most of it traced to one nursery supplier (Middleton and Lee 2026). Italy’s first detection, on gerbera in Sicily, traced to Spanish imports (Cocuzza et al. 2026). Field cases follow the same lines: from a Mexican stock farm through a California rooting station, as bare-root plants from the Netherlands to the Midwest, and as liners from Florida to the Northeast (Doering, interview; Anzell, interview; Gerry, interview).

Once in distribution, Tp goes where the plants go. Texas confirmed it at 12 sites in seven counties, from greenhouses and retail stores to community gardens (Neupane et al. 2026). Georgia finds it on retail mandevilla and dipladenia but not in the state’s nurseries (Kaur and Joseph 2026). In 2023 and 2024, growers were told to watch tropical material from Florida, where Tp was first confirmed as established in the continental United States (Vavilapalli et al. 2026). Today the advice is to watch the shipment itself: what arrives, from whom, and especially crops with a known Tp history.

A widening host list

In 2024, Tp in North American ornamentals meant tropicals: mandevilla and dipladenia, then gardenia, hibiscus, hoya, anthurium, ficus, and schefflera (Vavilapalli et al. 2026). Field detections since then reach further: bidens, a bedding crop; trailing vinca liners; woody nursery stock; and fuchsia growing beside infested mandevilla (advisor interviews). Koppert’s 2026 field photos show Tp damage on fuchsia, gardenia, and trailing vinca (Doering 2026). Koppert flagged poinsettia as a Tp host in 2025 (Doering 2025b).

Research agrees. The worldwide host record includes chrysanthemum, dahlia, gerbera, rose, vinca, and orchids (Vavilapalli et al. 2026), and a 2026 study documented Tp on open-field roses in India (Kumar et al. 2026). “The list of crops that we see it affected on just seems to be getting larger and larger every year,” Gerry said (Gerry, interview).

A host record does not confirm that the plant supports reproduction (Vavilapalli et al. 2026). The practical change is that bedding plants, ground covers, and woody stock belong in the scouting plan when they share space or suppliers with high-risk tropicals.

Eggs that inspection cannot see

The period’s most important pathway finding concerns eggs. Females insert them into leaf tissue, beyond inspection, washing, or a standard dip. Only about 7% of thrips arriving on imported mandevilla and dipladenia cuttings in Ontario were adults (Jandricic 2026a). Shipments carried up to nine thrips per 20 cuttings in 2024 trials, and some eggs, protected from the dip, hatched days later (Doering 2025a).

Field cases agree. Anthurium arrived at a Midwest operation washed and bare-root, with no visible insects; the infestation began when eggs hatched after potting (Doering, interview). “It’s in a leaf, and you won’t see it until it hatches out,” Doering said (Doering, interview). Gerry has even seen WFT emerge in tissue culture labs from eggs in source material (Gerry, interview).

In 2024, the advice was to dip incoming cuttings. By 2026, Ontario called for a clean-start protocol built around the life stages actually arriving, treating at receipt and again near the end of propagation (Jandricic 2026a).

Part C. Immediate: the first week

Assume it arrives infested

The attitude toward incoming material has reversed. Shipments were once presumed clean, with inspection to confirm it. Because Tp eggs are invisible, inspection confirms nothing. “Just assume everything coming in is dirty,” Doering tells growers. “Let’s eliminate it as a possibility within two weeks or so after receiving” (Doering, interview).

Gerry applies the rule to high-risk crops regardless of paperwork: “I don’t care if they gave me their spray report or they say they’re clean” (Gerry, interview). A 2026 review in the Journal of Integrated Pest Management likewise recommends isolating and inspecting new arrivals before they join production (Vavilapalli et al. 2026). Each high-risk shipment becomes its own integrated pest management (IPM) event, in its own space.

The hatch test

If eggs cannot be seen, they can be hatched. For varieties with a history of Tp, Doering recommends enclosing a sample of cuttings and watching what emerges over seven or eight days, or sending the sample to a university lab (Doering, interview). Ontario researchers used the same approach to count arriving thrips (Jandricic 2026a).

The test measures the lot. “If something does hatch out, at least you know what you’ve got,” Doering said (Doering, interview). One thrips hatching from 20 cuttings calls for a different response than nine or 10, and sampling only troublesome varieties keeps the labor proportionate.

Knowing what you are looking at

Awareness of Tp is broad but not complete. Anzell finds that most substantial operations have heard of the pest, and some growers suspect it from trade-magazine descriptions before he confirms it. Still, “they may not recognize the type of damage that it does,” he cautioned (Anzell, interview). Doering has found growers treating Tp as chili thrips or ordinary thrips, with no response until the species was identified (Doering, interview).

Research shows the same gap. In Sicily, early damage was misread as WFT injury (Cocuzza et al. 2026), and a 2026 rose study found that symptoms alone cannot identify the species (Kumar et al. 2026). Ontario’s October 2024 guidance focused on identification, down to phone attachments for photographing specimens (Johnson and Jandricic 2024). On fuchsia, Tp injury looks like broad mite damage, so Koppert advises scouting for both. Across crops, the common signs are wrinkled or tightly curled leaves at the branch tips and striped or speckled loss of chlorophyll (Doering 2026). The 2026 rule: confirm the species when a familiar thrips program stops working.

Clean-start treatments and dips

Cold and heat treatments are the newest first-week tools. In trials by the Vineland Research and Innovation Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), and OMAFA, holding infested mandevilla at 3C (37F) for three days cut survival by about 87% in eggs, 91% in larvae, and 100% in adults. A heat treatment of 44C (111F) at 100% relative humidity for two hours killed all eggs, larvae, and adults but one pupa, and young plants tolerated both (Summerfield 2026). These cutting-edge results show a hint of promise. Steam, though effective, is not a viable commercial strategy currently, because it requires special equipment (Doering 2026). Cold looks more practical, since many growers already have coolers, but most of these crops are tropical, and their tolerance of a sudden drop in temperature is poorly understood. Mandevilla and dipladenia breeders warn of leaf drop and yellowing, and with prolonged exposure below 50F, the growing tip can be damaged, causing an unintended pinch that hurts uniformity later in the crop (Doering 2026). The effects reach beyond leaf burn to production itself, including bud emergence and new tissue growth. Testing each variety before treating whole lots is highly advised.

Dips are better characterized. In a University of Florida study, the biological BotaniGard ES (Beauveria bassiana) and the horticultural oil SuffOil-X removed 80 to 100% of second-instar larvae (Ataide et al. 2025a). In Ontario, BotaniGard ES reached 97% on larvae, and SuffOil-X cut egg hatch by about 66% (Summerfield 2026, Jandricic 2026a). Canadian and U.S. registrations differ; labels govern.

Field programs add a foliar treatment. When a high-risk crop arrives, Gerry applies a contact oil or biological insecticide at once and again within seven to 10 days, puts cards up that day, and then moves the crop onto a biological program (Gerry, interview). The second application catches larvae hatching from protected eggs. Beyond that knockdown, contact products fall short as a program: Tp feeds in protected spots and its larvae move across the plant at different times of day (Doering 2026).

Part D. Short haul: one to four weeks

When there is no time for predators

Some crops leave before biology can take hold. A small finishing grower found Tp on mandevilla brought in as young plants for a quick finishing turn; the usual thrips product failed. Anzell added sprays with specific timing and mass trapping on white cards, but no predators: “They weren’t holding the crop long enough to do introductions” (Anzell, interview). The crop recovered and shipped.

In the short haul, chemistry is the tool, and here an advisor from a biological company recommended it. The 2026 difference is the follow-up: cards stay up after shipping, and adjacent crops are watched for anything left behind (Anzell, interview).

Stamping out hot spots and checking the neighbors

Hot spots are where speed pays. At a large greenhouse and nursery operation in 2024, white cards confirmed Tp on about 1,000 of roughly 200,000 square feet of woody stock. One foliar knockdown, layered on the existing biological program, stopped it, and new growth covered the damage. “It shows the power of the response time,” Anzell said (Anzell, interview). A 2025 reintroduction on bought-in mandevilla got the same response, and the crop kept its full value and shipped on time.

Adjacent crops come next. At one operation, Tp turned up in fuchsia in a house next to infested mandevilla, and the same protocol cleaned it up (Doering, interview). “They’re growing 150 or 200 other crops in the same area,” she noted (Doering, interview). Koppert reported the same jump in spring 2026, from mandevilla and dipladenia to other preferred crops nearby (Doering 2026). Once Tp is confirmed, adjacent houses join the scouting plan.

Chemistry that depends on the crop

The period’s key chemical finding is that efficacy does not transfer between crops. A University of Florida study tested seven conventional insecticides and two biorationals on mandevilla and gardenia. On mandevilla, chlorfenapyr (Insecticide Resistance Action Committee [IRAC] Group 13) gave roughly 80 to 100% mortality, abamectin (Group 6) 20 to 50%, and spinosad (Group 5) 10 to 50%, lasting about 14 days; mineral and sesame oils stayed under 40%. On gardenia, nothing gave significant control (Ataide et al. 2025b).

Why is unresolved. The authors cite leaf structure, waxes, plant chemistry, and spray deposition. Doering added hiding: Tp shelters in leaf folds and buds, beyond contact products, which favors translaminar or systemic materials (Doering, interview). Whatever the reason, working strategies for mandevilla failed on gardenia in their trial. Caitlin Sollazzo of the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) Extension advises small crop-by-crop trials and good upper-canopy coverage (Sollazzo 2025).

Indeed, treatment coverage matters. At a Northeast trailing vinca liner producer, a program including chlorfenapyr and cyantraniliprole failed (Gerry, interview). Cyantraniliprole is effective against Tp, and Koppert recommends it for knocking down thrips influxes (Webber 2025a, 2026), but a flower-directed, WFT-style spray may never reach the leaf folds and tips where Tp lives (see “Leaves, not flowers”). A product proven on one crop, or in one spray pattern, is a candidate, not a guarantee. Time contact sprays to the afternoon flight peak (see “New findings on virus transmission and flight”).

Regulation and the quiet supply chain

Regulation changed, and so did who carries the burden. Florida no longer treats Tp as a regulated nursery pest. Screening at two major mandevilla cutting suppliers appeared to reduce Tp on unrooted cuttings, but finished plants leaving Florida could still carry substantial populations (Calkins 2025). California rates Tp an “A” pest, its highest-concern category (CDFA 2025). Material from both states, the country’s two largest sources of tropical plants and propagative stock, warrants short-haul discipline.

Regulation also discourages disclosure. “Nobody wants anybody to know that they have the pest,” Doering observed; in one chain she traced, confirming Tp at a stock farm took about six months (Doering, interview). Receivers cannot rely on suppliers to warn them, so assuming infestation (see “Assume it arrives infested”) is the only safe default.

Part E. Long haul: four weeks and beyond

Building a multi-stage biological program

In 2024, growers hoped to adapt the WFT toolbox. Extension soon cautioned that most predator results lacked greenhouse validation (Splawski and Jubenville 2025), and in April 2025 Ontario advised starting with substrate treatments, microbials, and soil predators before committing to foliar predators at scale (Jandricic 2025). By 2026, the program targeted life stages: canopy predators for larvae and adults, soil predators and nematodes for pupae, and fungi for larvae on foliage.

The mix depends on the crop. On hoya, programs lean on fungi and soil predators because “hoya doesn’t have any place for predators to hide or reproduce on it,” Doering explained (Doering, interview). In commercial ficus, weekly mite releases alone fell short (Pijnakker et al. 2026). Koppert’s late-2025 liner program pairs a weekly nematode drench with a foliar fungus and azadirachtin for six weeks, without conventional insecticides (Doering 2025a). The 2026 version is a weekly sprench plus a weekly spray of the nematode Steinernema feltiae (Entonem), Isarid, and azadirachtin, hitting larvae, prepupae, pupae, and adults, with no chemical insecticides on liners (Doering 2026).

At a Northeast trailing vinca liner producer where chemistry had failed, Gerry built the recovery around Limonica, Capsanem, and Isarid. “They just haven’t taken their foot off the gas,” he said of the grower’s Capsanem and Isarid program (Gerry, interview).

Choosing predators for an aggressive pest

Tp’s defenses (see “An aggressive pest, shaped by its host plant”) shape predator choice. A. swirskii, the backbone of many WFT programs, cannot anchor a Tp program. Predatory mites ate only two to three and a half first-instar larvae a day, fewer than they eat of WFT (Pijnakker et al. 2026), and A. swirskii declined when combined with other predators (Rodríguez et al. 2026). Larger predators seem to do better. O. insidiosus cut Tp by about 80% in caged pepper (Saito and Buitenhuis 2025).

Among mites, Koppert recommends Limonica (Amblydromalus limonicus), introduced to ornamentals in 2024–2025 after a decade in U.S. cut flowers. It takes second- as well as first-instar larvae and in Koppert’s unpublished trials it “nearly doubled” the predation capacity of A. swirskii and Neoseiulus cucumeris against Tp (Webber 2025a). “Limonica is a bigger mite, so it can take on that,” Doering said (Doering, interview). Temperature decides: Limonica breeds “when it’s cool enough in the greenhouse to see your breath” and works into the mid- to upper 80s F, at which point Koppert generally switches to A. swirskii (Webber 2025a). A Limonica trial at a Northeast hoya liner producer brought what Gerry called “incredible results” (Gerry, interview).

Independent work adds a qualification: A. limonicus outperformed A. swirskii at low pest densities, while A. swirskii reached higher maximum consumption (Park et al. 2026). That fits Koppert’s preventive use. How the two rank commercially, with fresh stock in cool greenhouses, is untested.

Attacking the substrate

Soil pupation (see “Life cycle, temperature, and spread”) made the growing medium a target. Substrate-applied nematodes cut adult emergence, with Steinernema riobrave and Steinernema carpocapsae approaching 60% (Vargas et al. 2026). Ontario favors S. carpocapsae over the fungus-gnat nematode S. feltiae (Jandricic 2026a), but temperature matters. “S. carpocapsae is definitely the one you use when it’s warm out,” Doering said, while Northern growers “may still want to use S. feltiae, because it’s cooler” (Doering, interview). Koppert’s published rule puts the switch from Entonem to Capsanem (S. carpocapsae) at 70F (Doering 2026).

Soil predatory mites work the same zone, “either a soil mite or a nematode,” as Anzell put it (Anzell, interview). Doering called them critical, and Gerry has trialed Koppert’s Entomite in trailing vinca (Doering, interview; Gerry, interview). No independent data against Tp pupae have been published.

Fungi and other microbials

Entomopathogenic fungi, biological controls applied like sprays, are now core tools. B. bassiana performed well in dip trials (see “Clean-start treatments and dips”). Gerry applies Koppert’s Isarid (Cordyceps fumosorosea, formerly Isaria) weekly as a spray and drench (Gerry, interview), and weekly Isarid programs built for whitefly in poinsettia also control Tp (Webber 2025b). Koppert recommends weekly use from liner to ship, often with an insect growth regulator that weakens the cuticle (Webber 2026).

Results depend on context. LALGUARD M52 (Metarhizium brunneum) approached 100% mortality in some University of Florida tests and succeeded commercially in Ontario (Jandricic 2025, 2026b), yet in a 2024 anthurium trial, none of the sprayed products, including the Beauveria fungi BotaniGard and Velifer, significantly reduced Tp, while every predatory-mite treatment did (Harinck 2024). Crop, formulation, temperature, and application can each change the outcome.

The hidden cost of an all-chemical program

Chemical and biological controls fail differently. A broad-spectrum insecticide clears the deck, but repeated use breeds resistance and kills beneficials. A biological control is selective and builds with repeated use. “Chemicals are a declining curve,” wrote Jeremy Webber, then Koppert’s ornamental team leader. “Biologicals are an ascending curve” (Webber 2026).

Ontario shows what happens when chemistry carries the load. Its 2024 Tp rotation guide was essentially a product list arranged for resistance management (Jandricic and Colley 2024). By 2026, all-chemical programs had brought high costs and two-spotted spider mite resistance, because some Tp chemistries can enhance the fertility of spider mites (Jandricic 2026a, 2026b); some farms, especially those spraying weekly for Tp, lost crops to spider mites (Jandricic 2026b).

The 2026 advice changed the goal. It allows periods of tolerating some Tp to slow resistance, followed by timed cleanup, and mandevilla can outgrow interim damage if populations drop by midfall (Jandricic 2026b).

Scouting and monitoring in 2026

Scouting starts at the growing tips (see “Leaves, not flowers”), and each monitoring tool has a defined job. Cards track adult activity; plant washes, which also catch larvae, gave the most sensitive population estimates in Ontario (deHaan 2026). No economic thresholds are established for ornamentals; Ontario’s guide recommends acting at one thrips per 10 plants (Jandricic and Colley 2024, Vavilapalli et al. 2026), and how trap counts relate to damaging populations is unresolved (Vavilapalli et al. 2026).

Card color is open, though the sources are closer than they seem. In Ontario, dark blue beat yellow in hibiscus and did well in schefflera and mandevilla, but white, though included, had no results reported (deHaan 2026). Koppert ranks white best overall, blue better in some situations, and yellow last, and advises testing colors in each crop, “as we’ve seen some variance in response to color, depending on the crop and the lighting” (Webber 2025a). A grower comparison reported by Gerry favored yellow and white (Gerry, interview). No full comparison across colors, light levels, and seasons exists.

Monitoring also informs crop choice. Ontario suggests dropping exceptionally susceptible mandevilla cultivars, which become population sources (deHaan 2026), and one large operation moved to drop its most susceptible varieties after Tp became established (Anzell, interview).

Part F. How the advice changed

From killing thrips to managing a species

The advice traces one arc. In 2023: recognize a dangerous new thrips, send samples for diagnosis, consider dipping cuttings on arrival, and choose insecticides from data on related thrips (Calkins 2023). In 2024: focus on incoming material (Doering 2026). In 2025: Tp-specific predators (Webber 2025a), then the realization that one treatment at receipt is not enough because eggs survive (Doering 2025a). By 2026, the best programs manage production around the pest’s biology, targeting each life stage with crop-specific chemistry, chosen predators, and careful timing (Jandricic 2026a).

Knowledge flowed both ways. Field programs were already drenching incoming tropicals with S. carpocapsae in April 2025 (Doering 2025c), nine months before the research showing that nematodes suppress soil-dwelling Tp appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (Vargas et al. 2026).

Where to look for advice

Several Extension programs carry the most current information. Jandricic, writing through ONfloriculture, has kept the longest before-and-after record. The UF/IFAS Tropical Research and Education Center gathers alerts, webinars, and publications from Alexandra Revynthi’s program (UF/IFAS TREC 2026). Sollazzo showed that the Florida insecticide results differed by crop and advised small trials (Sollazzo 2025), Eric Middleton of the University of California Cooperative Extension traced Tp through retail (Middleton and Lee 2026), MSU explored what it means for Northern greenhouses (Splawski and Jubenville 2025), and Clemson tied early detection to fewer sprays (Schardong 2025).

For a running account in trade-press form, Tech On Demand, the GrowerTalks newsletter, has covered Tp regularly since its April 2023 issue, which became the newsletter’s most-opened issue of that year (Calkins 2023). Its editorial sections curate university and Extension findings; its Koppert Corner sections carry Koppert’s recommendations and are labeled as such. The PestTalks newsletter, edited by JC Chong and published by Ball Publishing, summarized the Florida program’s newest work in March 2026 (Chong 2026).

The industry’s response

Pest-control companies agree there is no single-product answer. Among biological suppliers, Koppert made the most explicit commitment, promoting Limonica as “a meaner mite for a badder bug” (Koppert US 2025). Microbial suppliers positioned their products as bridges that suppress Tp without blocking later beneficials.

Chemical manufacturers have said comparatively little. Independent data favor chlorfenapyr, with spinosad and abamectin giving partial control on mandevilla and nothing effective on gardenia (Ataide et al. 2025b), and spirotetramat drenches on gardenia did not reduce Tp (Chong 2026). None of these chemistries anchors a Tp-specific campaign. SePRO instead published a multi-manufacturer rotation guide organized by life stage, based on University of Florida research (Chong 2023).

References

• Anzell, C. Interview with the author, September 2026. Koppert.

• Ataide, L. M. S., Y. Velazquez-Hernandez, I. Reyes-Arauz, P. Villamarin, M. A. Canon, and A. M. Revynthi. 2025a. Potential of dip treatments to disinfest cuttings of the invasive Thrips parvispinus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 118(2): 780–786. doi:10.1093/jee/toae265

• Ataide, L. M. S., G. Vargas, Y. Velazquez-Hernandez, M. De Giosa, I. Reyes-Arauz, P. Villamarin, M. A. Canon, S. S. Riley, and A. M. Revynthi. 2025b. Greenhouse evaluation of conventional and biorational insecticides for managing the invasive Thrips parvispinus (Karny) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Agriculture 15(13): 1451. doi:10.3390/agriculture15131451

• Calkins, B. 2023. “NEW” invasive thrips species: Thrips parvispinus. Tech On Demand (GrowerTalks), 14 April 2023. growertalks.com/Newsletters/View/?article=4161

• Calkins, B. 2025. The latest on Thrips parvispinus. Tech On Demand (GrowerTalks), 11 April 2025. growertalks.com/Newsletters/View/?article=4885

• CDFA (California Department of Food and Agriculture). 2025. California pest rating profile for Thrips parvispinus (Karny): a thrips. Comment period 27 August–11 October 2025; proposed rating A. blogs.cdfa.ca.gov/Section3162/?p=14094

• Chong, J. C. 2023. Thrips parvispinus rotation guide. SePRO Corporation. sepro.com/media/3924/thrips-rotation-guide.pdf

• Chong, J. C. 2026. Phytotoxicity; new bug & weed management info. PestTalks (Ball Publishing), 23 March 2026. growertalks.com/Newsletters/View/?article=5222

• Cocuzza, G. M., E. Ben Hmad, and R. Novara. 2026. First report in Italy of Thrips parvispinus (Karny, 1922) (Thysanoptera, Thripidae), a major threat for Sicilian horticulture and floriculture. EPPO Bull. 56(1): 130–137. doi:10.1111/epp.70053

• deHaan, J. 2026. Thrips parvispinus: know thy enemy’s behaviour. ONfloriculture (OMAFA), 20 August 2026. onfloriculture.com/2026/08/20/thrips-parvispinus-know-thy-enemys-behaviour/

• Doering, H. 2025a. Koppert Corner: just a dip won’t do. Tech On Demand (GrowerTalks), 14 November 2025. growertalks.com/Newsletters/View/?article=5103

• Doering, H. 2025b. Koppert Corner: problematic thrips on poinsettias. Tech On Demand (GrowerTalks), 11 July 2025. growertalks.com/Newsletters/View/?article=4986

• Doering, H. 2025c. Koppert Corner: hitchhiker’s guide to flowering tropicals. Tech On Demand (GrowerTalks), 11 April 2025. growertalks.com/Newsletters/View/?article=4885

• Doering, H. 2026. Getting ahead of Thrips parvispinus. Koppert Corner, Tech On Demand (GrowerTalks), 9 October 2026. growertalks.com/Newsletters/View?article=5428

• Doering, H. Interview with the author, September 2026. Koppert.

• EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). 2026. First reports of Thrips parvispinus as a virus vector. EPPO Reporting Service no. 03-2026, article 2026/063. gd.eppo.int/reporting/article-8359

• Gerry, P. Interview with the author, September 2026. Koppert.

• Harinck, S. 2024. Control of Thrips parvispinus with different insecticides and natural enemies in Anthurium. Vertify trial report 240325, commissioned by Anthura and Koppert. Report PDF

• Jandricic, S. 2025. In case you missed it: UofF webinar on latest Thrips parvispinus research. ONfloriculture (OMAFA), 7 April 2025. onfloriculture.com/2025/04/07/in-case-you-missed-it-uoff-webinar-on-latest-thrips-parvispinus-research/

• Jandricic, S. 2026a. How to manage parvispinus, oleander aphid and spider mites effectively in Mandevilla: Part 1 – propagation. ONfloriculture (OMAFA), 23 February 2026. onfloriculture.com/2026/02/23/how-to-manage-parvispinus-oleander-aphid-and-spider-mites-effectively-in-mandevilla-part-1-propagation/

• Jandricic, S. 2026b. Controlling parvispinus, oleander aphid and spider mites in Mandevilla: Part 2 – spider mite resistance management. ONfloriculture (OMAFA), 27 February 2026. onfloriculture.com/2026/02/27/controlling-parvispinus-oleander-aphid-and-spider-mites-in-mandevilla-part-2-spider-mite-resistance-management/

• Jandricic, S., and J. Colley. 2024. Pesticide rotation guide for Thrips parvispinus in Canadian greenhouses. ONfloriculture (OMAFRA), 2 July 2024. onfloriculture.com/2024/07/02/pesticide-rotation-guide-for-thrips-parvispinus-in-canadian-greenhouses/

• Johnson, A., and S. Jandricic. 2024. High quality photos for thrips identification: rating phone attachments. ONfloriculture (OMAFRA), 1 October 2024. onfloriculture.com/2024/10/01/high-quality-photos-for-thrips-identification-rating-phone-attachments/

• Kaur, N., and S. V. Joseph. 2026. Short-spined thrips (Thrips parvispinus) in ornamentals: an update. UGA Turf and Ornamental Pest Management, 15 August 2026. site.caes.uga.edu/entomologyresearch/2026/08/shot-spined-thrips-thrips-parvispinus-in-ornamentals-an-update/

• Koppert US. 2025. Jeremy Webber discusses Limonica in GrowerTalks Magazine. 1 February 2025. koppertus.com/news-information/news/jeremy-webber-discusses-limonica-in-growertalks-magazine/

• Kumar, P. S., R. R. Rachana, B. Amarendra, and N. Sheela. 2026. Widening range of thrips in open-field rose cultivation: three species newly identified as pests in southern India. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 17(1): pmag015. doi:10.1093/jipm/pmag015

• Middleton, E. G., and N. Lee. 2026. Detecting Thrips parvispinus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in retail plant stores in Southern California. J. Insect Sci. 26(5): ieag105. doi:10.1093/jisesa/ieag105

• Neupane, S. B., P. F. S. Toledo, K. Velasco-Graham, F. N. Soto-Adames, and A. Kheirodin. 2026. First report on detection of Thrips parvispinus from multiple locations in Texas, USA. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 17(1): pmag024. doi:10.1093/jipm/pmag024

• Park, Y.-G., C. L. McKenzie, and L. S. Osborne. 2026. Functional responses of 3 generalist predators to Thrips parvispinus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae): Amblydromalus limonicus and Amblyseius swirskii (Acari: Phytoseiidae), and Franklinothrips vespiformis (Thysanoptera: Aeolothripidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 119(5): 3235–3248. doi:10.1093/jee/toag188

• Pijnakker, J., D. Vangansbeke, I. Iemma, S. Dubbeldam, and F. Wäckers. 2026. Efficacy of natural enemies against the tobacco thrips Thrips parvispinus (Karny) in laboratory and greenhouse studies. Pest Manag. Sci. 82(9): 9216–9228. doi:10.1002/ps.70966

• Reyes-Arauz, I. S., L. M. S. Ataide, Y. Velazquez-Hernandez, D.-F. Mou, and A. M. Revynthi. 2026. Unravelling unknown aspects of the biology of short-spined thrips. J. Econ. Entomol. 119(2): 1207–1218. doi:10.1093/jee/toaf336

• Rodríguez, E., M. Porcel, A. Robledo, L. Lara, M. M. Téllez, M. M. Montoro, C. Martínez, and A. Pekas. 2026. Evaluating predatory arthropods for the biological control of the invasive Thrips parvispinus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in greenhouse sweet pepper. Pest Manag. Sci. 82(9): 8448–8458. doi:10.1002/ps.70903

• Saito, T., and R. Buitenhuis. 2025. Investigating the potential of Anystis baccarum (Acari: Anystidae) and Orius insidiosus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) as biological control agents for Thrips parvispinus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in laboratory and greenhouse cage trials. J. Insect Sci. 25(6): ieaf110. doi:10.1093/jisesa/ieaf110

• Schardong, I. S. 2025. Proactive pest management: addressing Thrips parvispinus, an emerging pest of ornamentals in the United States, with the 2026 Insecticide, Miticide, Fungicide Guide and targeted field diagnostics. Clemson University IPM blog, 16 September 2025. blogs.clemson.edu/ipm/proactive-pest-management-addressing-thrips-parvispinus-…

• Sharanya, R., M. Gayathri, P. Renukadevi, N. Saranya, M. Suganthy, S. Varanavasiappan, and S. Nakkeeran. 2025. First record of the transmission of groundnut bud necrosis virus (GBNV) in tomato by Southeast Asian thrips, Thrips parvispinus. 3 Biotech 15(12): 426. doi:10.1007/s13205-025-04615-9

• Sollazzo, C. 2025. Thrips parvispinus management. UF/IFAS Extension Manatee County, 23 July 2025. blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/manateeco/2025/07/23/thrips-parvispinus-management/

• Splawski, C., and J. Jubenville. 2025. Thrips parvispinus management in Michigan greenhouses: insights from the latest research. MSU Extension, Floriculture and Greenhouse Crop Production, 15 May 2025. canr.msu.edu/news/thrips-parvispinus-management-in-michigan-greenhouses-insights-from-the-latest-research

• Summerfield, A. 2026. Dip, cool or steam? Clean Start treatments for Thrips parvispinus. ONfloriculture (OMAFA), 27 July 2026. onfloriculture.com/2026/07/27/dip-cool-or-steam-clean-start-treatments-for-thrips-parvispinus/

• UF/IFAS TREC (University of Florida Tropical Research and Education Center). 2026. Thrips parvispinus resources, A. Revynthi laboratory. Accessed September 2026. trec.ifas.ufl.edu/people/alexandra-revynthi/thrips-parvispinus

• Vargas, G., L. M. S. Ataide, Y. Velazquez-Hernandez, M. De Giosa, and A. M. Revynthi. 2026. Biological control of the invasive Thrips parvispinus (Karny) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) using entomopathogenic nematodes. Front. Agron. 7: 1697786. doi:10.3389/fagro.2025.1697786

• Vavilapalli, R., N. Kaur, E. N. Schoeller, M. Z. Ahmed, A. Mészáros, D.-F. Mou, A. M. Revynthi, P. Yu, A. N. Sparks, J. LaForest, B. L. Campbell, and S. V. Joseph. 2026. Biology, ecology, and management of Thrips parvispinus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). J. Integr. Pest Manag. 17(1): pmag011. doi:10.1093/jipm/pmag011

• Webber, J. 2025a. A meaner mite for a badder bug: how Limonica overcomes Thrips parvispinus. GrowerTalks, February 2025, pages 52–54. Sponsored content (Koppert). growertalks.com/Article/?articleid=27209

• Webber, J. 2025b. The evolution of poinsettia IPM. GrowerTalks, May 2025, pages 42–44. growertalks.com/Article/?articleid=27355

• Webber, J. 2026. The end of rotation anxiety. GrowerTalks Biosolutions Guide 2026, pages 14–16. growertalks.com/PDF/BioSolutions_Guide_2026/index.aspx