The green peach aphid, Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Hemiptera: Aphididae), is a serious pest on ornamental plants in greenhouses (Van Driesche et al. 2008, Fla. Entomol. 91: 583–591; Wick 1992, EPPO Bull. 22: 437–444). This pest can damage more than 800 species of plants representing 40 taxonomic families, and can complete a generation in 10–12 d to undergo 20 generations during periods of milder weather (van Emden et al. 1969, Annu. Rev. Entomol. 14: 197–270). In greenhouses, populations of this pest develop from a nondetection status to high and damaging levels in a very short period of time. Large populations of M. persicae often develop on young shoots and actively growing plants (Heathcote 1962, Entomol. Exp. Appl. 5: 114–118). In addition to causing direct feeding damage (e.g., yellowing of leaves, wilting, stunting of growth), this aphid transmits several plant viruses (van Lenteren et al. 1997, J. Appl. Entomol. 121: 473–485).Populations resistant to most of the commonly used insecticides have emerged as a result of continued and repeated use of many classes of insecticides over time (Foster et al. 2003, Pest Manag. Sci. 59: 1169–1178). Growers have turned to more ecologically based management tactics, such as augmentative and conservation biological control, as alternatives to chemical control and as a strategy to manage the development of resistance (Miller and Rebek 2018, J. Integrated Pest Manag. 9: 1–8, doi: 10.1093/jipm/pmy002). However, because M. persicae populations develop rather rapidly in ideal conditions in greenhouses, even augmentative release of natural enemies may prove ineffective against high densities of aphid populations or fail to suppress aphid populations below threshold levels (Rabasse and Van Steenis 1999, Pp. 235–243 in Integrated Pest and Disease Management in Greenhouse Crops, Springer, The Netherlands).The compatibility of various tactics for managing M. persicae in greenhouse production must be fully understood for their effective use. For example, knowledge of the interaction of insecticides with natural enemies may allow for the incorporation of selected insecticides with natural enemies (Abraham et al. 2013, J. Econ. Entomol. 106: 1590–1601; Koch et al. 2019, Pest Manag. Sci. doi 10.1002/ps.5525; Prado et al. 2015, Insects 6: 538–575; Rogers et al. 2007, Biol. Control 42: 172–177), and the lethal and sublethal effects of the insecticides on the natural enemies are equally important considerations. Furthermore, many of the insecticides commonly used for M. persicae control are reportedly harmful to their predators and parasitoids (Biondi et al. 2013, J. Insect Behav. 26: 695–707; Joao Zotti et al. 2013, Insect Sci. 20: 743–752; Krischik et al. 2007, Environ. Entomol. 36: 1238–1245; Rebek and Sadof 2003, J. Econ. Entomol. 96: 446–452; Rogers et al. 2007; Thompson et al. 2014, Apidologie 45: 545–553). However, efforts must continue in identifying the interactions of new chemistries and newly registered insecticides on natural enemies of M. persicae.Several species of lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) have been assessed for aphid control in greenhouses (Riddick 2017, Insects 8: 38, doi:10.3390/insects8020038; Van Driesche and Heinz 2004, Pp. 1–24 in Biological Control in Protected Culture, Ball Publ., Batavia, IL). Among them, the twospotted lady beetle, Adalia bipunctata (L.), is a specialist predator on aphids (Majerus 1994, Ladybirds, Harper Collins Publ., London, UK; Omkar and Pervez 2005, J. Appl. Entomol. 129: 465–474) and is commercially available for greenhouse use. Adalia bipunctata females feed on large numbers of aphids and increase densities in response to increasing aphid populations (Mills 1981, Ecol. Entomol. 6: 293–299). Adalia bipunctata females tend to consume more aphids than males (Hemptinne et al. 1996, Ecol. Entomol. 21: 165–170). Previous studies show that both adults and larvae of A. bipunctata voraciously prey upon M. persicae and complete their development in 21–22 d (Francis et al. 2001, Environ. Entomol. 30: 947–952).Afidopyropen (Ventigra™, BASF Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC) is a newly registered pyropene insecticide for use on ornamental plants. This insecticide is derived from pyripyropene, which is a fermented byproduct of Aspergillus fumigatus Fresenius (Leichter et al. 2013, Pestic. Biochem. Phys. 107: 169–176). Afidopyropen, a Group 9D insecticide, functions as the chordotonal organ Transient Receptor Potential Vanilloid (TRPV) channel modulator in insects, which affects movement and feeding activity leading to starvation and desiccation (Leichter et al. 2013; Insecticide Resistance Action Committee 2019, https://www.irac-online.org/modes-of-action/). Afidopyropen is an effective insecticide against aphids including M. persicae (Leichter et al. 2013; Vafaie et al. 2018, Arthrop. Manag. Tests 43:tsy003). However, harmful effects of afidopyropen on beneficial insects, such as A. bipunctata, are not fully understood in greenhouse conditions. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine effect of afidopyropen against M. persicae and on its predator, A. bipunctata.A greenhouse experiment was conducted on 3.7-L potted roses (Rosa spp., Pink ‘Double Knockout') in Griffin, GA. The terminals of the rose plants were naturally infested with M. persicae. A 15-cm-long rose terminal per plant was the experimental unit. The treatments were (a) no insecticide or predator, (b) predator only, (c) insecticide only, and (d) insecticide + predator. Ten replicates of each treatment were assigned to rose terminals according to a randomized complete block design. On 27 November 2018, those terminals that were assigned for insecticide treatment, afidopyropen (Ventigra), were sprayed at 50.9 g active ingredient per hectare using a hand-operated pressure sprayer. The water volume used for the spray was 373.98 L/ha. For the predator + insecticide treatment, the insecticide was first applied to the terminals with aphids before predators were introduced. Fourth instars of A. bipunctata were purchased from BioBest USA Inc. (Romulus, MI) and were maintained temporarily at 21°C and ∼45% relative humidity for <24 h in the laboratory before use. Before any treatments were administered, live M. persicae on the terminals were enumerated and recorded. After application of insecticide, four predator larvae were introduced on each rose terminal with aphids in predator-only and insecticide + predator treatments. Immediately after release of the predators on the terminals that received predators, terminals were caged using a no-see-um netting material for 72 h. Similarly, all terminals in the other two treatments were caged simultaneously for the same time interval. After 72 h, numbers of live M. persicae and A. bipunctata larvae in predator-only and insecticide + predator treatments were quantified from all the terminals. In the no-insecticide–no-predator and insecticide-only treatments, only numbers of M. persicae were quantified. The M. persicae data from all the treatments were square root transformed to establish homogeneity of variance, and the transformed data were subjected to ANOVA using general linear model (PROC GLM) procedure in SAS (SAS Institute, ver 9.3, Cary, NC). The number of M. persicae between pre- and postapplication for each treatment was analyzed using PROC TTEST procedure in SAS (α = 0.05) after square root transformation. The numbers of A. bipunctata larvae recovered in predator-only and predator + insecticide treatment were analyzed using PROC TTEST procedure in SAS (α = 0.05) without any data transformation.There was no significant difference in numbers of M. persicae between treatments before the treatments were administered (F = 2.0; df = 3, 27; P = 0.136; Fig. 1). After 72 h, numbers of M. persicae on rose terminals were significantly lower in insecticide + predator and insecticide-only treatments followed by predator-only treatment, than in no-insecticide–no-predator treatment (F= 20.4; df = 3, 27; P < 0.001; Fig. 1). Also, when numbers of M. persicae between pre- and postapplication were compared, there was no significant difference in no-insecticide–no-predator treatments (t = 0.8; df = 18; P = 0.415). The numbers of M. persicae were significantly lower in postapplication than in preapplication for predator-only (t=–3.6; df = 18; P= 0.002), insecticide-only (t=–7.6; df = 18; P < 0.001), and insecticide + predator treatments (t=–11.7; df = 18; P < 0.001; Fig. 1). The numbers of predator larvae recovered after 72 h was not significantly different between predator-only and insecticide + predator treatments (t=–1.2; df = 18; P= 0.232; Fig. 2).The results from the current study validate that afidopyropen caused considerable M. persicae mortality as reported by Vafaie et al. (2018). Similarly, A. bipunctata larvae were effective in reducing M. persicae densities. Because the standalone application of afidopyropen effectively reduced M. persicae, it was not clear if A. bipunctata played a role in reducing M. persicae in the presence of afidopyropen. Moreover, numbers of A. bipunctata recovered after 72 h were similar with and without afidopyropen. This suggests that afidopyropen has minimal negative impact on performance of A. bipunctata. Similarly, a previous field study showed that afidopyropen was nontoxic to adults or third instars of another coccinellid predator, Hippodamia convergens Guérin-Méneville, when evaluated against Aphis glycines (Matsumura) (Koch et al. 2019). This, and the current study, suggest that afidopyropen is compatible to lady beetles and can be used for aphid control as part of biological control program in the greenhouse.The author appreciates the technical assistance provided by C. Julian, D. Westbury, and A. Monterrosa. The author thanks Shaku Nair, the editor, and two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions to improve the previous versions of the manuscript. Funding was provided by BASF Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC.