Biological control with Trichogramma pretiosum increases organic
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Biological control with Trichogramma pretiosum increases organic maize productivity by 19.4%
Maria de Lourdes Corrêa Figueiredo 1&Ivan Cruz 1&Rafael Braga da Silva 1&John Edward Foster 2
Accepted:4May 2015/Published online:4June 2015#INRA and Springer-Verlag France 2015
Abstract Spodoptera frugiperda is a major pest causing maize yield loss in Brazil.There is therefore a need for control methods,notably for organic farming because classical pesti-cides are not allowed.A potential solution for organic maize is to apply the biological control agent Trichogramma pretiosum to reduce S.frugiperda populations.Here,we tested the appli-cation of one,two,or three releases of T.pretiosum .We mea-sured plant damage ratings,egg masses parasitized,and grain yield.Results show that 79.2%of egg masses were parasited.Maize yields for parasited plots increased of 701kg/ha versus control plots.This result equals a 19.4%gain of productivity and US$96.5gain per hectare.Therefore,biological control with egg parasitoids is a promising alternative to control S.frugiperda in organic maize.
Keywords Biological control .Egg parasitoid .IPM .Monitoring .Organic farming .Pheromone trap
1Introduction
Maize is of primary importance to Brazilian agribusiness,and it is grown widely in the national territory;the crop has a variety of socioeconomic interests across the country.Maize is a fundamental component in a chain of organic food pro-duction,which includes milk,beef,and eggs.Despite the in-crease in geographic area occupied by maize in Brazil and the market demand,research in bringing organic production to sustainable and profitable levels in the country remains inad-equate.Therefore,the development and subsequent adoption of alternative pest control strategies for organic agroecosystems poses a substantial challenge,particularly when combined with goals for increasing maize yield.
The fall armyworm,Spodoptera frugiperda ,is a key pest causing yield reductions in maize production systems (Cruz et al.2010).Biological control via the release of natural ene-mies such as egg parasitoids has been proposed as a viable method to control damaging Lepidopteran pests of maize in Brazil (Parra and Zucchi 2004).S.frugiperda deposit eggs on the plants.Their larvae emerge and feed on young leaves 3days after oviposition.Injury to young plants can result in stand reduction with subsequent yield loss of up to 54.5%in the conventional maize agroecosystem (Figueiredo et al.2006).The use of natural enemies,particularly parasitoids,has shown promising results in reducing damage from insect pests (Mills et al.2000;Mills 2010).Favorable results in biological control use have facilitated research opportunities to develop new commercial insectaries,and various natural enemies are commer-cially available for direct application (i.e.,inundative release)in pest management (Cruz et al.2013;V an Lenteren 2000).
Andow (1997)pointed out that the use of Trichogramma to control European corn borer in the USAwas limited by the low cost of chemical pesticides,even with substantial improve-ments in efficiency and a reduction in cost of the parasitoid.
*Maria de Lourdes Corrêa Figueiredo
figueiredomlc@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/7f16861222.html,.br
Ivan Cruz
Ivan.cruz@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/7f16861222.html, Rafael Braga da Silva
rafaelentomologia@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/7f16861222.html,.br John Edward Foster jfoster1@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/7f16861222.html,
1
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária/Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Milho e Sorgo,POBox 151,Sete Lagoas,Minas Gerais 35701-970,Brazil
2
Department of Entomology,Insect Genetics Laboratory,University of Nebraska-Lincoln,Lincoln,NE 68583-0816,USA
Agron.Sustain.Dev.(2015)35:1175–1183DOI
10.1007/s13593-015-0312-3
This fact is not the case in Brazil.The relatively low value of both the commercial product and labor for release of Trichogramma makes the technology viable,even when com-pared to the use of chemical insecticide.In addition to econom-ic competitiveness,environmental benefits obtained from the use of biological control favor the use of the egg parasitoid Trichogramma (Fig.1),to control S.frugiperda (Parra 2010).The release in a timely manner and appropriate density is imperative for successful pest management.Furthermore,in-teractions between the natural enemy community and fall ar-myworm population dynamics in maize fields must be con-sidered in developing an integrated pest management (IPM)program for this crop (Wyckhuys and O ’Neil 2006).This approach has been shown to reduce pest population densities,resulting in less plant injury and yield loss.It is believed that conservative measures (W?ckers et al.2007)taken for biolog-ical control in organic systems may promote the survival and the performance of the natural enemy in the area (Wyckhuys and O'Neil 2006).Additionally,the absence of chemical pes-ticides in organic systems will help increase the population of beneficial insects,as many of these chemicals compromise the efficacy of augmentative releases of biological control agents,as well as their natural occurrence (Ables et al.1979;Knutson 1998).However,in most production systems,the number of eggs parasitized by native populations of Trichogramma and other biological control agents are not sufficient to prevent the pest from reaching damaging levels (King et al.1985).
Despite progress in biological control worldwide,this alter-native is not widely used compared to chemicals (Popp et al.2013).There are several reasons for this;many problems must be overcome before the product reaches the end user (Parra 2010).Its efficiency depends on several factors,including the kind,quality and suitability of the biological agent,released number,method and the time of release,and the complex in-teractions between the parasitoid,the target pest,culture,and environmental conditions (Ables et al.1979;Knutson 1998).Insects captured in pheromone traps have been used as a tool in IPM decision-making and to initiate chemical control
and natural enemy releases (Ameline and Frérot 2001).A trap containing the S.frugiperda sex pheromone is considered the best method to determine if a maize crop requires insecticide treatment (Cruz et al.2012)and can also be used to ascertain the most suitable Trichogramma pretiosum release time.The trap detects moth arrival in the target area,and consequently,female parasitoid release can proceed at the appropriate time.The objective was to evaluate the efficiency of releases of T.pretiosum in reducing the population of S.frugiperda and increase crop yield in organic corn.
2Materials and methods
2.1Study area
The study was conducted at the Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Milho e Sorgo/CNPMS-Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária/EMBRAPA,in Sete Lagoas,State of Minas Gerais,Brazil (19°28′00′′S and 44°15′00′′W)at an altitude of 820m.
2.2Experimental design and treatments
A randomized block experimental design with four T.pretiosum release treatments and five replicates (twenty plots)was employed in the study.The parasitoid treatments were applied (0,1,2,and 3releases)when S.frugiperda pher-omone trap catches reached the action threshold (see section 2.4below).Each plot (cultivar “BR 106”)had 30rows of maize 20m long and 0.70m equidistant (420m 2).Maize was planted in a no-tillage system.Each experimental unit was separated by buffer plots of equal size to reduce the prob-ability of parasitoids going to neighboring plots.2.3Parasitoid
The parasitoids were obtained from a climate-controlled lab-oratory room maintained at 27±3°C,80±10%RH,and 12:12h (L:D)photoperiod according to the methodology of Cruz et al.(2013).The colony of T.pretiosum was initiated by obtaining adults originated from eggs of S.frugiperda and subsequently maintained in the laboratory on eggs of the fac-titious host Anagasta kuehniella (Cruz et al.2013).The para-sitoid was identified by taxonomist Roberto Antonio Zucchi,and individuals are held in the entomology museum at the Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz (ESALQ/USP)and the Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária).The experimental goal was to release five T.pretiosum fe-males per square meter maize plot,equivalent to 4200females and males per plot or 100,000ha -1based on the assumption of a 1:1sex ratio.Prior to each release,five random samples of 100adult parasitoids each (n =500)were taken from
the
Fig.1Female of Trichogramma pretiosum parasitizing egg mass of Spodoptera frugiperda at maize leaf
1176M.de Lourdes Corrêa Figueiredo et
al.
laboratory colony to determine the sex ratio and estimate the number of females released in the field.The results indicated that an overall mean of4329T.pretiosum adults/plot(55,706 females ha-1)were released on each date.
2.4Monitoring of S.frugiperda adults and T.pretiosum release
The initial moth appearance and frequency throughout the experiment was determined using a delta-type trap containing a plastic sachet with BIO SPODOPTERA?(Chem Tica Inter-national,SA),a synthetic sex pheromone of S.frugiperda. Only one trap was set in the middle of the experimental area beginning at maize shoot emergence according to the manu-facturer’s instructions.The trap initially was suspended from a stake0.91m above ground level.As the maize grew,the trap was raised to remain above the plant canopy,based on the manufacturer’s recommendations.Male S.frugiperda cap-tured in the traps were counted daily for25days.The phero-mone lure and the sticky trap base were replaced twice each seven-day period.The trap was used to monitor male moth arrival in the study area and to estimate the pest’s temporal proximity to oviposition.
The timing of the first parasitoid release was based on reaching an action limit of three or more moths (cumulatively)per pheromone trap(Cruz et al.2012).The second and third releases of T.pretiosum were performed at a minimum of seven-day intervals,based on continued male adult captures in the trap(i.e.,≥3males cumulative per trap) after each parasitoid release.The seven-day interval between releases was based on the longevity of the T.pretiosum and a mean interval of10days between parasitoid generations.
Twenty-four hours after emergence,parasitoids were transported in glass containers in the morning to the target area.The release was conducted in the center of each plot, by opening the containers for adult dispersal.Samplings to detect egg masses of S.frugiperda parasitized in100plants per plot were initiated5days after the first release of T.pretiosum.Each plant identified with S.frugiperda egg masses was given a numbered and dated label.Plants with egg masses were identified bearing a label stuck on a wooden stake,nailed in the ground(next to the plant),with red pvc tape for easy viewing in the field.Four evaluations were per-formed to identify egg masses in the area.The first one (Jan.17),5days after the first release of T.pretiosum;second (Jan.19),the first2days after.The third(Jan.24),5days after the second,and fourth(Jan.26),2days after the third.The eggs masses found were evaluated within5days after the release of T.pretiosum,verifying the presence of dark egg (blackened)characteristic of parasitism.In the last release of parasitoid,the presence of egg masses in plants and the occur-rence of parasitism were not evaluated.Egg masses were not removed from plants in the experimental area to maintain natural infestation of S.frugiperda and to measure the cumu-lative effects of T.pretiosum releases on insect damage and grain yield.
2.5Assessment of insect damage and grain yield Efficiency of field releases of T.pretiosum are evaluated by measuring egg parasitism,larval densities,crop damage,and economic return relative to similar fields treated with insecti-cides or not treated(Knutson1998).
The crop damage was evaluated25days after the first parasitoid release.One hundred plants in each ex-perimental plot were randomly assessed for larval dam-age to six leaves in the central part of the plant using the visual scale reported by Figueiredo et al.(2006):0, no visible damage;1,pinhole-type damage;2,shot hole-type damage;3,leaf portions eaten away,with some damage in the whorl;4,plant with the whorl destroyed;and5,dead plant.The grain yield was ob-tained by sampling an area containing four rows of5m through harvesting,threshing,and manual weighing of grain of corncobs of all plants for all treatments.The grain weight was corrected to14.5%moisture(Brazil-ian standard).
2.6Naturally occurring biological control agents
of S.frugiperda
The presence of natural biological control agents was verified by sampling carried out in a contiguous area of maize with the same agronomic conditions of the experimental area.Four subareas of420square meters were demarcated in this contiguous area.In each subarea,for four consecutive weeks,20plants were sampled and all insects present were counted.The plants were cut at ground level, bagged,and brought to the laboratory.The larvae of S.frugiperda were individually placed in50-ml plastic cups containing artificial diet until the emergence of egg-larval,larva,and larval-pupal parasitoids.The pred-atory insects collected on plants and the parasitoids after emergence in the laboratory were identified and incor-porated into the entomological museum of Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Milho e Sorgo.
2.7Statistical analyses
The data were subjected to analysis of variance using the program SISV AR,and the means were compared using the Scott-Knott range test at5%probability for statistical signif-icance.Regression analyses were performed using Origin8.1 statistical software.
Biological control with Trichogramma pretiosum increases organic maize productivity by19.4%
1177
3Results and discussion
3.1Monitoring of S.frugiperda in the trap,egg masses on plants,and parasitoid releases
The presence of S.frugiperda male moths in the target area was detected 3days after plant emergence,initiating the first release of T.pretiosum in the experimental plots (Fig.2a ).Moth capture decreased during the remaining 15days of the trapping period with only 16of the total 60moths captured in this period.Furthermore,the presence of egg masses in the experimental area coincided with the increase in the number of males caught in the traps.The following evaluations were performed on January 19,24,and 26.Incidentally,in the plots
without release of the parasitoid,the total number of egg masses (6)was smaller than the total number of egg masses found in plots with parasitoid (13–14)(Table 1).No parasit-ized egg mass was observed in the plots without release,indi-cating the absence or low natural population of the T.pretiosum in the experimental area.Of the 41egg masses observed in the plots with T.pretiosum releases,23were par-asitized,i.e.,more than 50%had at least one parasitized egg (Table 1).Of the 13egg masses observed in the treatment with two releases,10were parasitized.In plots with three releases,14egg masses were observed,8of which contained parasit-ized eggs.The average egg masses parasitized with one or two releases of T.pretiosum was 72.58%.Lower larval density in the target area can be further reduced by the presence of
other
Fig.2a Number (daily and cumulative)of S.frugiperda moths collected in a pheromone trap.Arrows indicate T.pretiosum release dates;b S.frugiperda moths captured in pheromone trap and analysis of egg masses in plants observed for 4days.
Regression equation is y=408.18?23.14X +0.35X 2;R 2=0.99;P <0.05
1178M.de Lourdes Corrêa Figueiredo et
al.
natural enemies such as parasitoids and predators that working together will result less damage to the crop and consequently lower loss in income.
Egg mass numbers on maize plants increased significantly over the next16days with increasing cumulative S.frugiperda captured in the pheromone trap following a quadratic relation-ship(R2=0.99,P<0.05)(Fig.2b).In plots with release,para-sitism was on average69.8,79.2,and68.75%in treatments with one,two,and three releases,respectively(Table1).It should be noted that the monitoring of egg masses,and the presence of at least one parasitized egg,was only performed until after the second release.The sampling was not performed to determine the occurrence and parasitism in egg masses after the third release.This precludes the conclusion here that three releases would provide more masses of parasitized eggs. Based on the results,the occurrence of a peak of the moth pest in the field required the third release.Therefore,an upward trend in the number of egg masses in the target area can be assumed.It can be expected that with three egg parasitoid releases,larval density on plants tend to be lower than in other larval density plots(0,1,or2releases).Due to the proximity in time between an increase in the number of moth caught in the trap and the third release time of the parasitoid,the plots with three releases could have a greater number of parasitized egg masses.
Three days following trap installation,four males were captured,indicating time for the first parasitoid release.There-fore,the following day(Jan.12),parasitoids were released into the target area.At this time,the cumulative number of captured males was13,indicating a high and increasing inci-dence of moth in the target area(Fig.2a).Seven days follow-ing the first parasitoid release,the second release was per-formed(19Jan.2006).The number of moths captured in the trap between13Jan.2006(1day following first release)and 18Jan.2006was29,far above the cutoff of three moths per trap.This result showed a large adult moth population in the target area.The second and third release of T.pretiosum was performed,respectively,7days after the first release and 10days after the second release(29Jan.2006).The third and last release was conducted after a second major peak occurrence of moth,similar to that observed at the first release of the parasitoid(Fig.2a).
It is also worth noting that,after the second release of the parasitoid,the flow of moths in the area was relatively low for about8days(Fig.2a).However,on the ninth day after this second release and1day after the third one,the second peak of moth occurred.The relatively high number of captured moths indicated re-infestation and real need for a new release of the parasitoid.The third release of the parasitoid T.pretiosum was essential to control the new re-infestation of S.frugiperda. This re-infestation was detected only by the efficiency of the pheromone trap.For the experimental premise,the plots with-out release or with one or two releases of T.pretiosum would be subject to damage by the pest,whose intensity would de-pend on the action of agents of natural occurrence in the ex-perimental area.
It is vital to determine the most appropriate time to release the egg parasitoid T.pretiosum.The synchronization of host and T.pretiosum is the most essential criterion for efficacious pest control.Pheromone trap might be a tool optimize to bio-logical control.The efficiency of this natural enemy is closely linked to their ability to seek and parasitize the eggs of the moth,to prevent the population growth of larvae in the target plant.Only releases carried out at the right time can bring the expected benefits.Errors in the release will result in failure of control,and this leads to loss of credibility of this pest control tactic that tends to reduce the pest population density in the initial stage of development of the host plant.
Table1Eggs mass of
S.frugiperda on corn with different numbers of T.pretiosum releases Evaluation(day)Releases
Without One
(Jan.12)
Two
(Jan.12and19)
Three
(Jan.12,19,and29) Parasitism(egg mass parasitized/total egg masses)
Jan.170/21/82/42/6
Jan.190/11/13/31/1
Jan.240/12/33/33/4
Jan.260/21/22/32/3
Total0/65/1410/138/14
Percentage of egg masses parasitized
Jan.17012.55033.3
Jan.190100100100
Jan.24066.710075
Jan.2605066.766.7
Average069.879.268.75
Biological control with Trichogramma pretiosum increases organic maize productivity by19.4%
1179
3.2Pest damage
The damage caused by larvae of S.frugiperda was low,even in the control,where T.pretiosum was not released.Consid-ering the onset of oviposition soon after the arrival of S.frugiperda,the average incubation period of the eggs was 3days,and the flow of moths relatively constant for at least 1week was expected relatively higher leaf damage than ob-served,especially in plots without release(Table2).
The lowest average leaf damage was observed in the plots with three releases.The average leaf damage score was inter-mediate in the plots with one and two releases of T.pretiosum with no significant difference between these two treatments (Table2).The interaction of natural enemies already present in the area,along with the augmentative releases of T.pretiosum, adds an effective control in organic maize cultivation,since the absence of chemical insecticides in the target area benefits both the native and introduced biological control.The low occurrence of leaf damage makes it clear that the release of T.pretiosum caused a reduction in the population of larvae. This reduction of larvae in the early stages of plant develop-ment(Table1)probably resulted in a gain in final yields in plots where parasitoids were released.In organic farming, there are added environmental gains from the conservative and augmentative biological control that benefit the crop,as well as providing additional income,which is not always ob-tained in areas where it employs non-selective chemical insec-ticides.Even in conventional agriculture,where the use of this chemical are permitted by law,the selectivity of insecticides should be considered in areas treated with releases of natural enemies,as well as conservative biological control.
3.3Naturally occurring biological control agents
of S.frugiperda
The predatory insects observed in samples taken in the sub-areas of maize adjacent to the experimental area were Doru luteipes(21.57%),Orius sp.(1.22%),and coccinellids (0.5%)that feed on eggs and small larvae of S.frugiperda.
The incidence of parasitoids on larvae of S.frugiperda was 53.1,31.3,29.2,and33.9%in the first,second,third,and fourth sampling,respectively.In the first sampling,the main parasitoids found were Hymenoptera,Eiphossoma laphygmae (23.96%),Chelonus insularis(20.8%),Campoletis flavicincta(3.1%),Exasticolus fuscicornis(2.08%),and Dip-tera(3.13%).The same species were found in the subsequent sampling.C.insularis(12.5%),https://www.wendangku.net/doc/7f16861222.html,phygmae(8.33%), E.fuscicornis(1.04%),and Diptera(9.38%)were the species found in the second sampled period.In the third sampling,the incidence of Diptera(14.58%)outperformed the https://www.wendangku.net/doc/7f16861222.html,phygmae(7.29%),C.insularis(5.25%),and C.flavicincta(2.1%).In the fourth and final sampling,Dip-tera also predominated(14.79%),followed by E.fuscicornis (1.04%)and C.insularis(1%).By physical proximity be-tween the two areas of maize,it is possible to consider that the presence of these biological control agents was important in suppressing the pest in addition to the T.pretiosum released. The egg-larval parasitoid C.insularis competes with T.pretiosum,as both parasitize eggs(Cabello et al.2011) and its performance in the target area was relevant(20.8% parasitism)in the first sampling.In addition to the egg para-sitism,some species of predators feed on both healthy and parasitized eggs,and their occurrence in the production sys-tem could result in intraguild competition.Of course,the ben-eficial effects of parasitoids were observed in egg masses where their presence was noted.
The role of natural control,particularly when maize is pro-duced under different production systems,must be considered for any biological control program.The importance of species complexes of natural enemies that suppress S.frugiperda pop-ulations was reported by Molina-Ochoa et al.(2001), Hoballah et al.(2004)(parasitoids),and Gross and Pair (1986)(predators).Figueiredo et al.(2006),using the tech-nique of exclusion of natural enemies with cages,confirmed the importance of these organisms in suppressing S.frugiperda.When protected for16days from the egg stage, the insect infringed severe damage to the plant compared to the damage caused to plants when the insect pest was not protected against their natural control agents.
The experimental area used in this study has been under organic cultivation for more than15years without any agro-chemicals.This would support increased biodiversity,includ-ing natural enemies of insect pests.In fact,both S.frugiperda and natural enemies are present in different developmental
Table2Injury caused by
S.frugiperda larvae on corn leaves and grain yield after release of T.pretiosum.Means followed by different letters in the same column are significantly different between treatments(Scott-Knott; p<0.05)Number of releases of egg
parasitoid T.pretiosum
Assessment of injury caused by
the larvae of S.frugiperda*(score0–5)
Grain yield*(Kg ha-1)
0 1.61±0.013A3618.85±36.49A
1 1.53±0.010B3887.50±17.58B
2 1.51±0.008B3915.00±32.11B
3 1.35±0.006C4319.97±31.44C
*Values are mean±standard error
1180M.de Lourdes Corrêa Figueiredo et
al.
stages in the area,as observed in other experiments conducted by Figueiredo et al.(2006).This fact can be corroborated with the presence of several biological control agents observed in larvae that were collected in the nearby area.Caterpillars par-asitized by C.insularis and C.flavicincta (Cruz 2002)sub-stantially reduce their food intake before they were killed.This assumption may be correct,especially considering the results obtained in terms of yield in plots where they held up to three releases of T.pretiosum .
The synergistic effects that natural enemies exert over the pest population in an agroecosystem should not be underestimated,mainly when releasing a biological control agent such as T.pretiosum .Therefore,at the time of assess-ment of leaf damage,the larvae originating from eggs of S.frugiperda were still in their early instars,and thus,their damage was not yet significant in the evaluation.This as-sumption can be correct,especially considering the results obtained in terms of grain yield in plots where there were three releases of T.pretiosum .3.4Yield
Grain yield varied according to the number of releases of T.pretiosum .In plots with three releases,grain yield was significantly greater than yield obtained from other treatments (Table 1),averaging >4300kg ha -1.On the other end of the scale,the smallest yield was obtained in plots where T.pretiosum were not released,with an average of 3650kg ha -1.In plots with one or two releases,the grain yield was intermediate,averaging between 3800and 3950kg ha -1,with no significant difference between these averages.The maize yield was significantly and positively correlated with T.pretiosum releases (R 2=0.84,P <0.05)(Fig.3).The grain
yields obtained in the plots with three releases of parasitoid was 701.25kg ha -1higher than the yield obtained in plots without release.Grain yield in plots with one or two releases was respectively 268.65and 296.15kg ha -1higher than yield observed in witness plots.
According to Smith (1996),the effectiveness of Trichogramma releases has been often inconsistent due to the model adopted for assessment and suggests that the crop yield is one of the parameters to be used to validate the effect of this biological control agent.The action limit,based on the capture of moths in traps,was calculated from data on the biology and ecology of S.frugiperda ,considering periods of life including incubation,larval development,and ability to cause economic damage.The action limit set at three moths caught in pheromone traps corresponds to a level of infesta-tion of 10%of damaged plants (Cruz et al.2012).Obviously,when the target to be reached is the egg stage by the use of T.pretiosum ,the release must be immediate as in the study.One cannot deny the accuracy of the method for monitoring the pest through the pheromone trap,considering the specific-ity of the product and the difficulty of monitoring the pest using other methods.In a conventional system,where chem-ical control is regularly adopted,usually the only source of the pest population reduction is the insecticide,whose efficiency depends on several factors including type,dose,method of application,etc.,where usually the natural enemies are also eliminated.In organic farming,the environmental conditions without chemical insecticide favor the increased population of natural enemies to the point of reducing the population of phytophagous insects to an acceptable level.It should be not-ed that Spinosad was lethal for all Trichogramma species evaluated (Ksentini et al.2010)and that the application of this and other insecticides should be avoided in agroecosystems where Trichogramma are dominant or will be released (Liu and Zhang 2012).
It is possible that natural control would not be able to re-duce the density of S.frugiperda .Thus,the release of the T.pretiosum would be needed to elicit an immediate impact,reducing the S.frugiperda population.This fact was evident in the plots with three releases of T.pretiosum ,because the re-lease was made after a peak population of moths.In fact,84%of grain yield was explained by the release of the parasitoid.The presence of T.pretiosum parasitism in egg masses shows that the natural enemy was able to seek and parasitize their eggs in the experimental area (Table 1).The reduction of pest damage on plant leaves in the initial stage of crop develop-ment (although low in all treatments)was significant in the plots with release of parasitoids.The major effect of parasitoid can be seen in the plots with three releases.Although an as-sessment of damage to leaves was not performed after the third release,the most indicative of the beneficial effect of parasitoids can be seen by the significant increase in grain yield in these plots in relation to grain yields obtained in
the
Fig.3Maize yield after release of T.pretiosum to control S.frugiperda (Kg ha -1).Regression equation is y=3615.7+213.0X ;R 2=0.84;P <0.05
Biological control with Trichogramma pretiosum increases organic maize productivity by 19.4%
1181
other plots,including those where there were no parasitoids released or in fewer releases.
Kuhar et al.(2002)considered Trichogramma ostriniae the primary factor in the mortality and subsequent suppression of Ostrinia nubilalis,proving that in areas where the parasitoid was released,the control level of the pest in sweet maize was 92%.Hoffmann et al.(2002)also reported similar results after inoculative releases of T.ostriniae to control O.nubilalis.Fi-gueiredo et al.(2002)reported positive interactions after re-leasing the Telenomus remus in maize.An increase of21%in the control of S.frugiperda resulted from the natural occur-rence of Trichogramma spp.,and together,the two parasitoids responded for97.5%mortality of pest eggs.
In this study,the cost of the wasp and its commercial re-lease for the standard measure adopted in the country,which is the hectare,is US$15.76for single release parasitoids.In ad-dition to commercial plants,there are in Brazil Trichogramma production laboratories under the farmers’association control for use in corn,cotton,soybeans,and tomatoes in each pro-duction region.In this scheme,besides reducing control costs, it facilitates the distribution for the various properties.Easy access to parasitoids at the right time and their efficiency has shown that the trend of its use in Brazil is expanding,espe-cially now with the recent occurrence of Helicoverpa armigera in the country in corn and other crops of commercial interest.
Ultimately,both the action of natural biological control agents in the target area and the release can provide a positive impact on pest suppression.This management approach is recommended for control of S.frugiperda in organic agricul-ture.This system experiences less interference than conven-tional farming,and T.pretiosum is commercially available in Brazil.Multiple T.pretiosum releases are more cost-effective and exhibit increased efficacy against S.frugiperda relative to a single release,and the initial pest distribution and parasitoid functional response are key factors in the biological control effectiveness and decreased environmental impact.Based on comparable efficacy between chemical and biological methods applied to control S.frugiperda in agricultural maize fields,Gitz(2008)demonstrated notable advantages to T.pretiosum release,including an approximately78%low-er cost of the biological control approach.
The commercial availability of natural enemies of phytoph-agous insects is a limiting factor to the use of biological con-trol in agricultural areas.However,in many countries,there has been a significant increase in the installation of factories dedicated to the production and sale of different species of beneficial insects for agricultural use.Among the most com-mon species,there is emphasis on the egg parasitoids.
According to Parra(2010),in general,the labor is cheaper in Brazil than in many other countries.One release of T.galloi to control Diatraea saccharalis in sugarcane costs around $14,including labor for release into the field.This cost is lower than in Europe and USA.Over300,000ha of sugarcane have been treated with this parasitoid to control D.saccharalis. The species T.pretiosum and Trichogramma atopovirilia were released in tomatoes and maize in over50,000ha in2007–2008(Parra2010).Therefore,biological control is a solid strategy for use in organic farming and integrated pest man-agement programs.
The international scientific literature includes Trichogramma species as an excellent alternative to control pests,particularly Lepidoptera(Hassan1993;Van Lenteren 2000).However,extensive knowledge about different species efficacy to control pests and commercially available natural enemies has been the major restriction in adoption,particular-ly for organic maize agro ecosystems.The adoption of the pheromone trap along the corn plots is a key to adjust the release of Trichogramma in the presence of S.frugiperda eggs and avoid the failure of parasitoid releases.Improving the quality of biological agents as well as the correct adoption of biological control with other pest control tactics tend to rise by pressure from consumers concerned with environmental qual-ity and food safety.Despite conflicting results,the adoption of augmentative releases with Trichogramma has presented mostly satisfactory results,and with larger studies and tech-niques may provide better results than before.
Organic farming practices must expand to meet consumer demands for organically grown foods as well as the deploy-ment of new commercial insectaries due to the effectiveness of biological control agents.
4Conclusion
Monitoring of S.frugiperda by capturing males in the trap with synthetic sex pheromone can be used to set the time of parasit-oid release,facilitating the management in maize,especially in the area of organic farming,providing gains in grain yield.
The release of the parasitoid is due to the presence of inde-pendent egg masses of plant development stage.
Three releases of T.pretiosum on corn under organic culti-vation produced higher grain yields and profitability of the production system.
In this study,the T.pretiosum release strategy provided substantial economic benefits to the producer,as up to three releases contributed US$96.476ha-1gains.
Economic returns and environmental benefits indicate that biological control with egg parasitoids is a viable alternative in organic maize.
Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Dr.Gregg Stephen Nuessly(University of Florida,USA)for reviewing the manuscript and for suggestions and to“Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científ-ico e Tecnológico(CNPq)”for the financial support to the postdoc of the first author.
1182M.de Lourdes Corrêa Figueiredo et
al.
References
Ables JR,Jones SL,Morrison RK,House VS,Bull BL,Bouse LF, Carlton JB(1979)New developments in the use of Trichogramma to control lepidopteran pests of cotton.Proc.1979Cotton Prod.Res.
Conf.National Cotton Council,Memphis,pp125–127
Ameline A,Frérot B(2001)Pheromone blends and trap designs can affect catches of Sesamia nonagrioides(Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) males in maize fields.J Appl Ent125:15–18.doi:10.1111/j.1439-0418.2001.00492.x,Biocontrole.https://www.wendangku.net/doc/7f16861222.html,.
br/.Accessed20May2013
Andow DA(1997)Integrating biological control in IPM systems.In Andow DA,Ragsdale DW,Nyvall RF(eds)Ecological Interactions and Biological Control,Westview Press,Boulder,pp 71–86.
Cabello T,Gámez M,Torres A,Garay J(2011)Possible effects of inter-specific competition on the coexistence of two parasitoid species: Trichogramma brassicae Bezdenko and Chelonus oculator(F.) (Hymenoptera:Trichogrammatidae,Braconidae).Community Ecol 12:78–88
Cruz I(2002)Controle biológico em manejo de pragas.In:Parra JRP, Botelho PSM,Corrêa-Ferreira BS,Bento JMS(eds)Controle biológico no Brasil:parasitoides e predadores.Manole,S?o Paulo, pp543–579
Cruz I,Figueiredo MLC,Silva RB,Foster JE(2010)Efficiency of chem-ical pesticides to control Spodoptera frugiperda and validation of pheromone trap as a pest management tool in maize crop.RBMS 10:107–122
Cruz I,Figueiredo MLC,Silva RB,Silva IF,Paula CS,Foster JE (2012)Using sex pheromone traps in the decision-making process for pesticide application against armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda[Smith][Lepidoptera:Noctuidae])lar-vae in maize.Int J Pest Manag58:83–90.doi:10.1080/ 09670874.2012.655702
Cruz I,Figueiredo MLC,Matoso MJ(2013)Production de Trichogramma avec la pyrale de la farine(Anagasta kuehniella).
In:de Almeida RP,Ivan C(eds)Technologie de production de Trichogramma spp.pour la lutte biologique contre les lépidoptères-ravageurs.Embrapa,Brasília,pp13–75 Figueiredo MLC,Della Lucia TMC,Cruz I(2002)Effect of Telenomus remus Nixon(Hymenoptera:Scelionidae)density on control of Spodoptera frugiperda(Smith)(Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)egg masses upon release in a maize field.RBMS2:12–19 Figueiredo MLC,Martins-Dias AMP,Cruz I(2006)Rela??o entre
a lagarta do cartucho e seus agentes de controle biológico
natural na produ??o de milho.Pesq Agrop Brasileria41: 1693–1698
Gitz A(2008)La industria de biocontrol em Brasil.New Ag Int16–21.
https://www.wendangku.net/doc/7f16861222.html,.br/downloads/artigos/Artigo%2008% 20Bio%20Controle.pdf.Accessed21May2013
Gross HR,Pair SD(1986)The fall armyworm:status and expectations of biological control with parasitoids and predators.Fla Entomol69: 502–515
Hassan SA(1993)The mass rearing and utilization of Trichogramma to control lepidopterous pests:achievements and outlook.Pestic Sci 37:387–391
Hoballah ME,Degen T,Bergvinson D,Savidan A,TamòC,Turlings TCJ (2004)Occurrence and direct control potential of parasitoids and predators of the fall armyworm(Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)on maize in the subtropical lowlands of Mexico.Agric For Entomol6:83–88.
doi:10.1111/j.1461-9555.2004.00207.x Hoffmann MP,Wright MG,Pitcher SA,Gardner J(2002)Inoculative releases of Trichogramma ostriniae for suppression of Ostrinia nubilalis(European corn borer)in sweet corn:field biology and population dynamics.Biol Control25:249–258.doi:10.1016/ S1049-9644(02)00105-6
King EG,Coleman RJ,Phillips JR,Dickerson WA(1985)Heliothis spp.
and selected natural enemy populations in cotton:a comparison of three insect control programs in Arkansas(1981–82)and North Carolina(1983).Southwestern Entomol8:71–98
Knutson A(1998)The Trichogramma manual:a guide to the use of Trichogramma for biological control with special reference to aug-mentative releases for control of bollworm and budworm in cotton.
Texas Agriculture Extension Service,Texas A&M University System,College Station,Texas
Ksentini I,Jardak T,Zeghal N(2010)Bacillus thuringiensis,deltamethrin and spinosad side-effects on three Trichogramma species.Bull Insectol63:31–37,ISSN1721-8861
Kuhar TP,Wright MG,Hoffmann MP,Chenus SA(2002)Life table studies of European corn borer(Lepidoptera:Crambidae)with and without inoculative releases of Trichogramma ostriniae (Hymenoptera:Trichogrammatidae).Environ Entomol31:482–489 Liu TX,Zhang Y(2012)Side effects of two reduced-risk insecticides, indoxacarb and spinosad,on two species of Trichogramma (Hymenoptera:Trichogrammatidae)on cabbage.Ecotoxicology 21:2254–2263.doi:10.1007/s10646-012-0981-5
Mills NJ(2010)Egg parasitoids in biological control and integrated pest management.In:C?nsoli FL,Parra JPR,Zucchi RA(eds)Egg par-asitoids in agroecosystems with emphasis on Trichogramma.
Springer,London,pp389–411
Mills NJ,Pickel C,Masfield S,McDougall S,Buchner R,Caprile J, Edstron J,Elkins R,Hasey J,Kelley K,Krueger B,Olson B, Stocker R(2000)Mass releases of Trichogramma wasps can reduce damage from codling moth.Calif Agric56:22–25
Molina-Ochoa J,Hamm JJ,Lezama-Guttierez R,Lopez-Edwards M, Gonzalez-Ramirez M,Pescador-Rubio A(2001)A survey of fall armyworm(Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)parasitoids in the Mexican states of Michoacán,Colima,Jalisco and Tamaulipas.Fla Entomol 84:31–36
Parra JRP(2010)Egg parasitoids commercialization in the new world.In: C?nsoli FL,Parra JPR,Zucchi RA(eds)Egg parasitoids.
Agroecosystems with emphasis on Trichogramma.Springer, London,pp373–388
Parra JRP,Zucchi RA(2004)Trichogramma in Brazil:feasibility of use after twenty years of research.Neotrop Entomol33:271–281.doi:
10.1590/S1519-566X2004000300001
Popp J,Pet?K,Nagy J(2013)Pesticide productivity and food security.A review.Agron Sustain Dev33:243–255.doi:10.1007/s13593-012-0105-x
Smith SM(1996)Biological control with Trichogramma:advances,suc-cesses,and potential of their use.Annu Rev Entomol41:375–406.
doi:10.1146/annurev.en.41.010196.002111
Van Lenteren JC(2000)Success in biological control of arthropods by augmentation of natural enemies.In:Gurr G,Wratten S(eds) Biological control:measures of success.Kluwer Academic Publishers,The Netherlands,pp77–103
W?ckers FL,Romeis J,Van Rijn PCJ(2007)Nectar and pollen-feeding by insect herbivores and implications for tri-trophic interactions.
Annu Rev Entomol52:301–323
Wyckhuys KAG,O’Neil RJ(2006)Population dynamics of Spodoptera frugiperda Smith(Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)and associated arthro-pod natural enemies in Honduran subsistence maize.Crop Prot25: 1180–1190.doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2006.03.003
Biological control with Trichogramma pretiosum increases organic maize productivity by19.4%
1183
酒店前台服务员管理规章制度
---------------------- 前台规章制度 一、仪容仪表 1. 上班时间需化淡妆，长发须佩戴头花或盘起。 2. 着装必须干净整洁，必须穿工作服上班。 3. 不能留长指甲，不能涂指甲油，不能佩戴夸张的饰品。 4. 保持最佳的精神状态工作。 二、工作纪律 1. 上班时间，不能吃东西、上网看电视，打接与工作无关的电话时间不能过长（特殊情况和家里重大事情除外）。 2. 上班时间不能在前台睡觉、不能串岗、不能拿上班时间会客，不能大声喧哗。 3.上班时间不能无故缺席，离岗时要在登记表做好记录（楼层巡检，吃饭，检查各个会议室等）不得无故闲逛。 三、工作规定 1. 上班期间服务态度好。主动向客人问好、站立服务、耐心的与客人交流，让客人在酒店住的舒适。 2. 员工不能把私人情绪带入工作中，随时随地对客人保持微笑。 3. 不能拿酒店财物私用或带回家（如有发现一律重罚或开除）。 4. 时刻保持前台的清洁。 5. 员工不能徇私舞弊，互相包庇。 6. 当班人员上班，不能迟到早退、不能擅自离岗、不能私自换班（需提前报告领导写好换班条，待领导审批，通过方可换班）、不能无故旷工（特殊情况可向部门领导请示）。 以上规章制度一经核实，发现第一次给予警告，第二次给予罚款，犯多次或屡教不改者，公司有权给予开除处理。 备注：（罚款方式：第一次20元，第二次50元，情况严重者重罚） ---------------------------------------------------------精品文档
---------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------精 品 文档前台工作内容 1. 为客人办理入住登记并请客人签字确认，认付款方式(挂账、现金,)问明付过押金后给客人房卡，并向客人解释房卡内容，在电脑中及时占房，发放早餐卷。 2.住宿登记单上,住几个人写几个人的名字,以便开门。入住时要询问客人住几天,以便刷几天的房卡,收几天的房费。同时,电脑上时间也要与此一致, 以方便楼层。坚持姓氏称呼。 3.阅读交班本，了解上一班未完成事项，及时进行跟进和处理。 4.查看各部门钥匙使用和归还纪录情况，并将钥匙分类放置。 5.核对房态，确保房态正确，清点房卡，所有一致加起来数目和上一班交接相符和。 6.如有客人要求换房，确定已通知客房服务人员和楼层服务人员进行打扫，检查。确认无误，收回房卡，发放新的发卡为客人换房。 7.了解每日会议信息和会议用房数，若会议举办方有任何要求，及时与楼层服务员和客房服务 员联系并跟进。
酒店房卡管理规定
酒店房卡管理规定 一、房卡类别 1、客房房卡分总控卡、领班卡、楼层卡、客人卡。 2、总控卡由相关管理人员持有。 3、领班卡由各楼层领班持有。 4、楼层卡各楼层员工持有。 5、客人卡由前台员工保管、制作。 注：若领班卡、楼层卡丢失或损坏，应立即上报部门，采取相应的措施（消磁和补办），当班人员要有补办记录，以免酒店遭受损失 二、房卡管理 1、总控卡由总经理、副总经理、前厅部经理、客房部经理、大堂经理持有。 2、领班卡、楼层卡由客房服务中心保管，实行每天签字借用制度。 ⑴领班卡用于查房使用，此卡可以开启所管辖的楼层所有客房房门。 ⑵楼层卡用于服务员打扫卫生使用，按照服务员的工作范围制作。 ⑶调换楼层时要有交接手续。
3、持卡人不得将自己的卡借给其他人员使用，一定发现必将严惩。 4、客人卡的管理制度： ⑴将客房卡交给客人前，前台员工必须确认客人身份； ⑵前台原则上单人房每间只发放一张房卡，双人房根据客人要求可发放两张房卡，并在电脑中注明数量； ⑶客人房卡遗失： 验明客人身份和登记相符→说明规定，向客人收取或从押金中扣除赔偿费→重新制作l张新的房卡给客人→确保前一张房卡作废。 ⑷客人钥匙损坏： A. 验卡→显示房号和客人所报相同，且在期限内→重新制作一张房卡给客人，并与客人说明赔偿费用。 B. 如果卡号不能显示或不能验卡→验明客人身份和登记相符→重新制作1张房卡给客人，并向客人说明赔偿费用。 ⑸客人寄存钥匙： A. 听清客人所报房号，请客人稍等→验卡→显示房号和客人所报一致，取房卡袋填写房号，将房卡插入房卡袋内，放在抽屉内→客人来取时，验明身份后，交还房卡。 B. 如验卡时，房号不能显示，应先验明身份，再进行寄
酒店前台房卡管理规定
酒店前台房卡管理规定 SANY GROUP system office room 【SANYUA16H-
前台房卡管理规定 一、房卡类别： 1、客房房卡分总控卡、领班卡、楼层卡、客人卡。 2、总控卡店级领导、客房相关管理人员持有（董事长、总经理、副总经理、客务总监、客房经理） 3、领班卡由各楼层领办持有 4、楼层卡各楼层员工持有 5、客人卡由前台员工制作 注：若领班卡、楼层卡丢失或损坏，应立即上报部门，采取相应的措施（消磁和补办），前台要有补办记录，以免酒店遭受损失 二、客人卡的管理制度： 1、将客房匙交给客人前，前台员工必须确认客人身份； 2、前台原则上单人房每间只发放一条房匙，双人房根据客人要求可发放两条房匙，并在电脑中注明； 3、客人房卡遗失： 验明客人身份和登记相符→说明规定，向客人收取或从押金中扣除赔偿费（30元）→重新制作l把新的钥匙给客人→通知房务中心→使用管理卡到该房间插一次卡（做消磁处理），确保插卡前使用的钥匙作废。 4、客人钥匙损坏： A.验卡→显示房号和客人所报相同，且在期限内→重新制作l把钥匙给客人，并向客人致歉。 B.如果卡号不能显示或不能验卡→验明客人身份和登记相符→重新制作1把钥匙给客人，并向客人致歉。 5、客人寄存钥匙： A.听清客人所报房号，请客人稍等→验卡→显示房号和客人所报一致，取房卡填写房号，钥匙插入新房卡，放在寄存抽屉内→客人来取时，验明身份后，交还钥匙，将写房号的房卡撕毁。 B.如验卡时，房号不能显示，应先验明身份，重新制作钥匙，再进行寄存。 C.如客人寄存时嘱咐他人来取→填写留言单，请客人签字确认→钥匙、留言单放在房卡中存放于收银抽屉内→领取时验明身份→留言单保留在客帐内直至客人退房。 6、客人退房时，前台员工应提醒客人交还房匙→如客人出示的钥匙没有房卡或押金单证明其房号，必须验卡验证无误后，方可通知客房服务员查房并办理退房手续。 7、退房时，客人将钥匙留在房间：客房服务员查完房交到前台。凡有折痕、断裂、明显污迹、坏的钥匙，交前台主管保管。
房卡管理制度
酒店前台房卡管理 一、房卡类别及制卡权限： 1、客房房卡分总卡、领班卡、楼层卡、客人卡 2、总卡为客房相关管理人员持有（董事长、总经理、副总经理、客务总监、客 房经理、前厅经理）由前厅经理制作 3、领班卡由各楼层领办持有由大堂副理或前厅经理制作 4、楼层卡各楼层员工持有由大堂副理制作 5、客人卡由前台员工制作 二、客人卡的管理制度： 1、将房卡交给客人前，前台员工必须确认客人身份； 2、前台原则上单人房每间只发放一张房卡，双人房根据客人要求可发放两张房 卡，并在电脑中注明； 3、客人房卡遗失： 验明客人身份和登记相符→说明规定，向客人收取或从押金中扣除赔偿费（50元）→重新制作一张新的房卡给客人→通知房务中心→使用管理卡到该房间插一次卡（做消磁处理），确保插卡前使用的房卡作废。 4、客人房卡损坏： 1)验卡→显示房号和客人所报相同，且在期限内→重新制作一张房卡给客人， 并向客人致歉。 2)如果房卡号不能显示或不能验卡→验明客人身份和登记相符→重新制作一 张房卡给客人，并向客人致歉。
5、客人寄存房卡： 1)听清客人所报房号，请客人稍等→验卡→显示房号和客人所报一致，取 房卡套填写房号，房卡插入房卡套，放在寄存抽屉内→客人来取时，验明身份后，交还房卡，将写房号的房卡套撕毁。 2)如验卡时，房号不能显示，应先验明身份，重新制作房卡，再进行寄存。 3)如客人寄存时嘱咐他人来取→填写留言单，请客人签字确认→房卡、留 言单放在房卡中存放于收银抽屉内→领取时验明身份→留言单保留在客帐内直至客人退房。 6、客人退房时，前台员工应提醒客人交还房卡→如客人出示的房卡没有房卡 或押金单证明其房号，必须验卡验证无误后，方可通知客房服务员查房并办理退房手续。 7、退房时，客人将房卡留在房间：客房服务员查完房交到前台。凡有折痕、断 裂、明显污迹、坏的房卡，交前台主管保管并做记录。 8、未经登记客人许可，不得为任何来访者开启客人房间或发卡给来访者； 9、任何服务员如发现房卡遗留于公共场所，应立即交当值主管，送回前台接待 处处理； 10、客房服务员不得对客人以错放房卡在房间内为由，随便开房门让客人进入， 应即时打电话到前台接待处核实客人身份，如有任何疑问，应请客人到前台接待处办理补卡手续。 11、前台服务员每班交接时，必须核对客人房卡数量。发现任何缺失必须上报 并在交接本上作记录。 12、所有房卡上不能贴房号
星级酒店房卡管理守则4.doc
星级酒店房卡管理制度4 一、房卡类别： 1、客房房卡分总控卡、领班卡、楼层卡、客人卡。 2、总控卡店级领导、客房相关管理人员持有(董事长、总经理、副总经理、客务总监、客房经理) 3、领班卡由各楼层领办持有 4、楼层卡各楼层员工持有 5、客人卡由前台员工制作 注：若领班卡、楼层卡丢失或损坏，应立即上报部门，采取相应的措施(消磁和补办)，前台要有补办记录，以免酒店遭受损失 二、客人卡的管理制度： 1、将客房匙交给客人前，前台员工必须确认客人身份; 2、前台原则上单人房每间只发放一条房匙，双人房根据客人要求可发放两条房匙，并在电脑中注明; 3、客人房卡遗失： 验明客人身份和登记相符→说明规定，向客人收取或从押金中扣除赔偿费(30元)→重新制作l把新的钥匙给客人→通知房务 中心→使用管理卡到该房间插一次卡(做消磁处理)，确保插
卡前使用的钥匙作废。 4、客人钥匙损坏： A.验卡→显示房号和客人所报相同，且在期限内→重新制作l把钥匙给客人，并向客人致歉。 B.如果卡号不能显示或不能验卡→验明客人身份和登记相符→重新制作1把钥匙给客人，并向客人致歉。 5、客人寄存钥匙： A.听清客人所报房号，请客人稍等→验卡→显示房号和客人所报一致，取房卡填写房号，钥匙插入新房卡，放在寄存抽屉内→客人来取时，验明身份后，交还钥匙，将写房号的房卡撕毁。 B.如验卡时，房号不能显示，应先验明身份，重新制作钥匙，再进行寄存。 C.如客人寄存时嘱咐他人来鳃填写留言单，请客人签字确认→钥匙、留言单放在房卡中存放于收银抽屉内→领取时验明身份→留言单保留在客帐内直至客人退房。 6、客人退房时，前台员工应提醒客人交还房匙→如客人出示的钥匙没有房卡或押金单证明其房号，必须验卡验证无误后，方可通知客房服务员查房并办理退房手续。 7、退房时，客人将钥匙留在房间：客房服务员查完房交到前台。凡有折痕、断裂、明显污迹、坏的钥匙，交前台主管保管。 8、未经登记客人许可，不得为任何来访者开启客人房间或
客房部房卡管理制度
客房部房卡管理制度及开门程序 房卡管理制度 1、作为客房部的任何一员，如将总卡或是楼层卡丢失，就等于丢掉自己的这份工作，后果是不堪设想的，因为这关系到酒店和客人的财产安全和人生安全问题； 2、所有持卡人都应做到卡不离人，不可将卡乱扔乱放，更不可 将卡随便给部门以外的人去开房门； 3、每天上下班或吃饭的时候，都应有交接卡的程序，做好交接 的登记； 4、不可将卡带离工作岗位，用餐或下班时应将卡交还房务中心保管； 5、每个持卡人都应爱护房卡，正确使用房卡。 敲门开门程序 1、客房部任何持卡人都应养成，不管是任何房态（也就是说： 不管是空房、住人房、锁房还是维修房等等”）都应养成敲门报服务员”的好习惯； 2、在开房门前首先要时刻了解所要开门的房间状态（即:房态），一般除住人房而外，我们只需敲一次房门报服务员”即可，而对 住客房来讲就不能简单化，不管此时房间是否有客或是无客，都应先按门铃三下或再敲三次房门，然后报：服务员”同时耳朵 要时刻关注房间有无动静（也就是说：是否听到有客人回应？”； 3、不可不敲门直接就拿房卡开门，或者是边敲门边插房卡开门，
还有任何人都不能抱有：我以为房间没有客人”的这种想法，而 直接插卡开门的话，将会酿成大错，这些可都是开门的大忌； 4、开门时要注意房卡芯片的朝向，同时要懂得识别电脑锁信号灯所表示的意思，电脑锁信号灯一般有以下四种表示意义： A、房卡芯片朝向正确和设置房号和门牌号对得上，插入房卡电脑锁会亮绿灯，你会听到嘟”一声，此时立即拔出房卡，此时又会听到电脑锁内弹簧回弹的声音，这时房门就可以打开了； B、房卡所设置的房号与门牌号对不上（也就是说：客人如果走错房间”，或者是房卡超时和插卡不到位，此时电脑锁会闪三下黄灯，房门是打不开的； C、任何房卡插反了，电脑锁都会亮红灯，抽出房卡红灯立即熄 灭，此时房门是打不开的； D如果房间里面打上防盗栓的话，此时用总卡、楼层卡、宾客卡开门，电脑锁都会先亮黄灯，再亮红灯，并且会有嘟”一声鸣响； E、不管你怎么插卡，电脑锁都不会亮灯的话，表示电脑锁没有电了，就要采取措施更换电池，方可用卡开门。 5、客房部任何持卡人都不能随便用自己的卡去帮客人开门，必 须确认客人身份无误后，方可用自己的卡帮客人开门，一般客人开不了门并要求帮其开门有以下几种情况： A、客人有卡，没欢迎卡，走错房间； B、客人有卡，有/无欢迎卡，但客人不会开；
酒店房卡管理制度
南融全际酒店 房卡管理制度 一、房卡类别： a)客房房卡分总裁卡、管理卡、总控卡、领班卡、楼层卡、客人卡。 b)总裁卡、管理卡、总控卡由总经办班相关管理人员持有（总经理、总助） c)领班卡由客房经理和客房主管、领班持有 d)楼层卡由各楼层客房部员工持有 e)客人卡由前台员工制作 注：若领班卡、楼层卡丢失或损坏，应立即上报直属上级，采取相应措施（消磁 和补办），前台需有补办记录，以免酒店遭受损失 二、房卡操作流程 a)领班卡、楼层卡由客房部负责保管，必须存放在指定地方，客房经理须每天检查 b)楼层房卡由客房经理/主管在每日晨会时发放给服务员 c)服务员在领用和交接时必须在工作记录本上记录并签名确认 d)服务员在当班时才有权使用楼层卡在班次结束时需将楼层卡归还 e)服务员非工作需要不得擅自开启客房房门 f)不得随便为他人开启客房 g)客人在楼层要求开门，服务员请客人核对身份，用电话和前台核对（姓名、身份证、 入住日期等），待确认客人身份后方可为客人开启房门 h)按前台指示为客人开启房门 三、房卡保管 a)房卡要时刻随身携带，不得乱丢、乱放 b)严禁将房卡转借他人使用 c)丢失房卡，马上报告主管，查明原因，积极寻找 d)房卡严禁当取电卡使用 e)夜班员工领取领班卡 f)房卡归还必须有记录，并且签名确认 四、客人卡管理制度 a)客人入住前前台人员将客人房间房卡制作给客人 b)原则上每个房间只发放一张房卡，若客人需要两张房卡需收取相应的押金为客人发 放两张房卡并在电脑上注明，在交班记录本上做好交接 c)客人房卡遗失：验明客人身份和登记相符说明规定，向客人收取赔偿费重 新制作一把新的房卡给客人开具赔偿单签客人签字在交班记录本上做好 交接管理人员根据赔偿单到财务处领取新房卡 d)客人房卡损坏：验卡显示房号和客人所报相同，且房卡还未过期核对客
酒店管理规范
客房服务流程及规范 一、目的:为了规范客房服务人员的服务行为,提高酒店的客房服务水平, 提升客户对服务的满意度,特制定工作标准。 二、员工仪容仪表: 1.手指甲不得超过0、5毫米,时刻保持清洁,不可涂指甲油; 2.经常理发,头发梳理整齐。保持前不遮眉、中不盖耳、后不过领,女士 长发要简单盘于脑后。男士胡须应始终修剪干净。 3.不可佩戴夸张首饰,男士只可带样式简单的手表; 4.整齐穿着酒店制服,制服要求干净整洁; 5.员工不可佩戴有色及大框眼镜; 6.女员工必须着淡妆,不可不化妆或化浓妆。 三、对客服务规范: 1.见到客人要侧身礼让并微笑点头问好; 2.与客人交谈时要有礼貌,必须使用礼貌用语; 3.对客人的额外要求,应立即报告主管; 4.不得向客人索要小费或礼品; 5.如果发现客人在房间里吵闹、发病或醉酒,立即通知主管; 6.非工作需要不得开启或进入客人房间,如因工作需要应先敲门经客人 允许后方可进入; 7.在客人房间做清洁时,不得翻瞧客人物品; 8.不得想客人泄露酒店管理秘密; 9.不得想客人泄露其她客人的信息及秘密; 10.不得私自为客人结账,应礼貌指引到前厅处。 四、物品发放流程及规范: 1.填写申请单 ①客房部凡领用物品,均须规定填写申请单; ②申请单须经主管与经理审批。 2.发放与盘点 ①凭经理审批后的申请单,有客房文员予以发放,发货时要注意物品 保质期,先进先发、后进后发; ②客房文员按时进行月度物品盘点存量。 3.做好发放记录 ①发放物品时,客房文员要以填好的物品领用单(含日期、名称、规 格、型号、数量、单价、用途等)为依据; ②客房文员要及时做好物品管理账簿,保证账物一致。
酒店前台房卡管理制度
酒店前台房卡管理制度 一、房卡类别： 1、客房房卡分总控卡、领班卡、楼层卡、客人卡。 2、总控卡店级领导、客房相关管理人员持有（董事长、总经理、副总经理、客务总监、客房经理） 3、领班卡由各楼层领班持有 4、楼层卡各楼层员工持有 5、客人卡由前台员工制作 注：若领班卡、楼层卡丢失或损坏，应立即上报部门，采取相应的措施（消磁和补办），前台要有补办记录，以免酒店遭受损失 二、客人卡的管理制度： 1、将客房匙交给客人前，前台员工必须确认客人身份； 2、前台原则上单人房每间只发放一条房匙，双人房根据客人要求可发放两条房匙，并在电脑中注明； 3、客人房卡遗失： 验明客人身份和登记相符→说明规定，向客人收取或从押金中扣除赔偿费（30元）→重新制作l把新的钥匙给客人→通知房务中心→使用管理卡到该房间插一次卡（做消磁处理），确保插卡前使用的钥匙作废。 4、客人钥匙损坏： A.验卡→显示房号和客人所报相同，且在期限内→重新制作l把钥匙给客人，并向客人致歉。 B.如果卡号不能显示或不能验卡→验明客人身份和登记相符→重新制作1把钥匙给客人，并向客人致歉。 5、客人寄存钥匙： A.听清客人所报房号，请客人稍等→验卡→显示房号和客人所报一致，取房卡填写房号，钥匙插入新房卡，放在寄存抽屉内→客人来取时，验明身份后，交还钥匙，将写房号的房卡撕
毁。 B.如验卡时，房号不能显示，应先验明身份，重新制作钥匙，再进行寄存。 C.如客人寄存时嘱咐他人来取→填写留言单，请客人签字确认→钥匙、留言单放在房卡中存放于收银抽屉内→领取时验明身份→留言单保留在客帐内直至客人退房。 6、客人退房时，前台员工应提醒客人交还房匙→如客人出示的钥匙没有房卡或押金单证明其房号，必须验卡验证无误后，方可通知客房服务员查房并办理退房手续。 7、退房时，客人将钥匙留在房间：客房服务员查完房交到前台。凡有折痕、断裂、明显污迹、坏的钥匙，交前台主管保管。 8、未经登记客人许可，不得为任何来访者开启客人房间或发卡给来访者； 9、任何服务员如发现房卡遗留于公共场所，应立即交当值主管，送回前台接待处处理； 10、客房服务员不得对客人以错放锁匙在房间内为由，随便开房门让客人进入，应即时打电话到前台接待处核实客人身份，如有任何疑问，应请客人到前台接待处办理补匙手续。 11、前台服务员每班交接时，必须核对客人钥匙数量。发现任何缺失必须上报并在交接本上作记录。 10、所有IC卡上不能贴房号。
前台房卡管理规定
前台房卡管理规定 一、房卡类别： 1、客房房卡分总控卡、领班卡、楼层卡、客人卡。 2、总控卡店级领导、客房相关管理人员持有（董事长、总经理、副总经理、客务总监、客 房经理） 3、领班卡由各楼层领办持有 4、楼层卡各楼层员工持有 5、客人卡由前台员工制作 注：若领班卡、楼层卡丢失或损坏，应立即上报部门，采取相应的措施（消磁和补办），前台要有补办记录，以免酒店遭受损失 二、客人卡的管理制度： 1、将客房匙交给客人前，前台员工必须确认客人身份； 2、前台原则上单人房每间只发放一条房匙，双人房根据客人要求可发放两条房匙，并在电 脑中注明； 3、客人房卡遗失： 验明客人身份和登记相符→说明规定，向客人收取或从押金中扣除赔偿费（30元）→重新制作l把新的钥匙给客人→通知房务中心→使用管理卡到该房间插一次卡（做消磁处理），确保插卡前使用的钥匙作废。 4、客人钥匙损坏： A.验卡→显示房号和客人所报相同，且在期限内→重新制作l把钥匙给客人，并向客人 致歉。 B.如果卡号不能显示或不能验卡→验明客人身份和登记相符→重新制作1把钥匙给客 人，并向客人致歉。 5、客人寄存钥匙： A.听清客人所报房号，请客人稍等→验卡→显示房号和客人所报一致，取房卡填写房号， 钥匙插入新房卡，放在寄存抽屉内→客人来取时，验明身份后，交还钥匙，将写房号的房卡撕毁。 B.如验卡时，房号不能显示，应先验明身份，重新制作钥匙，再进行寄存。 C.如客人寄存时嘱咐他人来取→填写留言单，请客人签字确认→钥匙、留言单放在房卡 中存放于收银抽屉内→领取时验明身份→留言单保留在客帐内直至客人退房。 6、客人退房时，前台员工应提醒客人交还房匙→如客人出示的钥匙没有房卡或押金单证明 其房号，必须验卡验证无误后，方可通知客房服务员查房并办理退房手续。 7、退房时，客人将钥匙留在房间：客房服务员查完房交到前台。凡有折痕、断裂、明显污 迹、坏的钥匙，交前台主管保管。 8、未经登记客人许可，不得为任何来访者开启客人房间或发卡给来访者； 9、任何服务员如发现房卡遗留于公共场所，应立即交当值主管，送回前台接待处处理； 10、客房服务员不得对客人以错放锁匙在房间内为由，随便开房门让客人进入，应即时打电 话到前台接待处核实客人身份，如有任何疑问，应请客人到前台接待处办理补匙手续。 11、前台服务员每班交接时，必须核对客人钥匙数量。发现任何缺失必须上报并在交接本上 作记录。 12、所有IC卡上不能贴房号。
酒店安全管理制度
酒店安全管理制度 总则 一、为了加强酒店的安全监督管理，防止和减少安全事故，保障酒店、客人和员工的生命和财产安全，促进酒店经营管理的健康发展，根据《中华人民共和国安全法》和有关法律法规的规定，特制定本规定。 二、酒店设安全管理委员会，由总经理任主任委员，副主任委员由酒店副总担任，以协管酒店工保部工作。安全管理委员会其他委员由各部门负责人担任，并由总经理任命。安全管理委员会的常设办事机构为工保部，安全日常工作由工保部负责，档案管理由总经办负责。 三、各部门应根据本部门各岗位的工作特点，依照国家及行业的有关劳动安全规定及技术标准，制定和不断完善本部门各类劳动安全管理制度和操作规程。 四、各部门制定的各类劳动安全管理规章制度，须报总经办备案。 五、在发生安全事故时，可根据酒店总经理指示成立事故处理小组，并按酒店制定的《安全管理工作程序和报告制度》（见附件一）进行妥善处置。 六、酒店劳动安全实行酒店、部门、班组三级管理。 七、酒店安全管理委员会的职责： 1、组织、指导各部门贯彻落实国家的安全方针和有关政策、规定。 2、教育各部门管理人员尊章守法，带头搞好安全。 3、听取各部门安全方面的情况汇报，发现问题及时找有关人员研究解决。 4、协调各部门安全工作，调查、布置、指导、检查安全情况，发现问题立即纠正。 5、负责随时检查、通报各部门劳动安全管理的执行情况，对出现的各类不安全问题及职业伤害事故进行调查分析，并提出处理意见和整改措施。 八、部门负责人安全职责： 1、在酒店安全管理委员会的领导下，对本部门执行安全规章制度的情况进行经常性的监督检查，对各岗位、设备的安全操作和安全运行进行监督。 2、向酒店安全管理委员会提交安全书面工作意见，主要包括：针对部门的安全隐患提出防范措施、隐患整改方案、安全技术措施和经费开支计划。 3、参与制定酒店和部门防止伤亡、火灾事故和职业危害的措施及危险岗位、危险设备的安全操作规程，并负责督促实施。 4、经常进行现场安全检查，及时发现、处理事故隐患。如有重大问题，应以书面形式
客房部房卡管理制度及开门程序
房卡管理制度 1、作为客房部的任何一员，如将总卡或是楼层卡丢失，就等于丢掉自己的这份工作，后果是不堪设想的，因为这关系到酒店和客人的财产安全和人生安全问题； 2、所有持卡人都应做到卡不离人，不可将卡乱扔乱放，更不可将卡随便给部门以外的人去开房门； 3、每天上下班或吃饭的时候，都应有交接卡的程序，做好交接的登记； 4、不可将卡带离工作岗位，用餐或下班时应将卡交还房务中心保管； 5、每个持卡人都应爱护房卡，正确使用房卡。 敲门开门程序 1、客房部任何持卡人都应养成，不管是任何房态（也就是说：“不管是空房、住人房、锁房还是维修房等等”）都应养成敲门报“服务员”的好习惯； 2、在开房门前首先要时刻了解所要开门的房间状态（即：房态），一般除住人房而外，我们只需敲一次房门报“服务员”即可，而对住客房来讲就不能简单化，不管此时房间是否有客或是无客，都应先按门铃三下或再敲三次房门，然后报：“服务员”，同时耳朵要时刻关注房间有无动静（也就是说：“是否听到有客人回应？”）； 3、不可不敲门直接就拿房卡开门，或者是边敲门边插房卡开门，还有任何人都不能抱有：“我以为房间没有客人”的这种想法，而直接插卡开门的话，将会酿成大错，这些可都是开门的大忌； 4、开门时要注意房卡芯片的朝向，同时要懂得识别电脑锁信号灯所表示的意思，电脑锁信号灯一般有以下四种表示意义： A、房卡芯片朝向正确和设置房号和门牌号对得上，插入房卡电脑锁会亮绿灯，你会听到“嘟”一声，此时立即拔出房卡，此时又会听到电脑锁内弹簧回弹的声音，这时房门就可以打开了； B、房卡所设置的房号与门牌号对不上（也就是说：“客人如果走错房间”），或者是房卡超时和插卡不到位，此时电脑锁会闪三下黄灯，房门是打不开的； C、任何房卡插反了，电脑锁都会亮红灯，抽出房卡红灯立即熄灭，此时房门是打不开的； D、如果房间里面打上防盗栓的话，此时用总卡、楼层卡、宾客卡开门，电脑锁都会先亮黄灯，再亮红灯，并且会有“嘟”一声鸣响； E、不管你怎么插卡，电脑锁都不会亮灯的话，表示电脑锁没有电了，就要采取措施更换电池，方可用卡开门。 5、客房部任何持卡人都不能随便用自己的卡去帮客人开门，必须确认客人身份无误后，方可用自己的卡帮客人开门，一般客人开不了门并要求帮其开门有以下几种情况： A、客人有卡，没欢迎卡，走错房间； B、客人有卡，有/无欢迎卡，但客人不会开；
酒店客房部管理制度流程
一、房务部规章制度 “宾客至上、服务第一”是我们的服务宗旨：客人永远是对的，是我们的座右铭。对此，每一个前台人员务必深刻、领会、贯彻到一言一行中去。 酒店业是服务行业，我们要发扬中国传统的礼节和好客之道，树立服务光荣的思想，加强服务意识，竭力提供高效、准确、礼貌的服务，这宾客创一个“宾至如归”的境界。 1）仪表、仪态： （一）本部门员工以站立姿势服务，总台夜班员工十二点以后方坐，但若有客人前来，当即起立。 （二）在服务区域内，身体不得东歪西倒，前倾后靠，不得伸懒腰、驼背、耸肩、不得扎堆聊天。 （三）不配带任何饰物、留长指甲、女员工不得涂色在指甲上。 （四）必须佩带工号牌，工号牌应佩带在左胸处，不得任其歪歪扭扭，注意修整，发现问题及时纠正，从后台进入服务区域之前，也应检查仪容仪表。 2）表情、言谈： （一）面对客人应表现出热情、亲切、真实、友好，必要时要有同情的表情，做到精神振奋、情绪饱满、不卑不亢。（二）和客人交谈时应眼望对方，频频点头称是。 （三）双手不得叉腰，交叉腰前，插入衣裤或随意乱放，不抓头，抓痒，挖耳，抠鼻孔，不得敲桌子，鼓击或摆弄其它物品。 （四）不得哼歌曲，吹口哨，跺脚，不得随地吐痰，乱蓬蓬丢杂物，不得当众整理个人衣物，不得将任何物件夹于腋下。 （五）在客人面前不得经常看表。 （六）咳嗽，打喷嚏时应转身向后，并说对不起。 （七）不得大声谈笑、说话、喊叫，乱丢碰物品，发出不必要声响。 （八）上班时间不得抽烟、吃食物。 （九）不得用手指或笔杆指客人和为人指示方向。 （十）要注意自我控制，随时注意自己的言行举动。在与客人讲话时应全身贯注，用心倾听，不得东张西望，心不在焉。 （十一）在为客人服务时不得流露出厌烦、冷淡、愤怒、僵硬、紧张和恐惧的表情，不得扭捏作态，做鬼脸、吐舌、眨眼。 （十二）员工在服务、工作、打电话和与客人交谈时，如有客人走近，应立即示意，以表示已注意他（她）的来临，不得无所表示，等客人开口。 （十三）不得以任何借口顶撞、讽刺、挖苦客人。 （十四）指第三者是不能讲他（她），应称那位先生或那位女士。 （十五）离开面对客人，一律讲“请稍候”，如果离开时间较长，回来后要讲“对不起，让你久等”，不得一言不发就开始服务。 3）制服： （一）制服应干净、整齐、笔挺。 二）纽扣要全部扣好，穿西装制服时，第一颗纽扣须扣上，不得敞开外衣，卷起裤脚，衣袖，领带必须给正。（三）行李员不得不戴制服帽出现在服务区域内。 4）电话： （一）所有来电务必在三响之内接答。
房卡管理规定
房卡管理规定 一、房卡类别： 1、客房房卡分总控卡、领班卡、楼层卡、客人卡。 2、总控卡由相关管理人员持有。 3、领班卡由各楼层领班持有。 4、楼层卡各楼层员工持有。 5、客人卡由前台员工保管、制作。 注：若领班卡、楼层卡丢失或损坏，应立即上报部门，采取相应的措施（消磁和补办），前厅部要有补办记录，以免酒店遭受损失 二、房卡管理 1、总控卡由项目经理、项目副经理、前厅部经理、客房部经理、值班经理持有。 2、领班卡、楼层卡由客房服务中心保管，实行每天签字借用制度。 ⑴领班卡用于查房使用，此卡可以开启所管辖的楼层所有客房房门。 ⑵楼层卡用于服务员打扫卫生使用，按照服务员的工作范围制作。 ⑶调换楼层时要有交接手续。 3、客人卡的管理制度： ⑴将客房卡交给客人前，前台员工必须确认客人身份； ⑵前台原则上单人房每间只发放一张房卡，根据客人实际要求可发放两张房 卡，并在电脑中注明数量； ⑶客人房卡遗失： 验明客人身份和登记相符→说明规定，向飞行大队相关负责部门或负责人报告→重新制作l张新的房卡给客人→确保前一张房卡作废。 ⑷客人钥匙损坏： A. 验卡→显示房号和客人所报相同，且在期限内→重新制作l张房卡给客人，。
B. 如果卡号不能显示或不能验卡→验明客人身份和登记相符→重新制作1张 房卡给客人，并向客人说明。 ⑸客人寄存钥匙： A. 听清客人所报房号，请客人稍等→验卡→显示房号和客人所报一致，取房卡 袋填写房号，将房卡插入房卡袋内，放在抽屉内→客人来取时，验明身份后，交还房卡。 B. 如验卡时，房号不能显示，应先验明身份，再进行寄存。 C. 如客人寄存时嘱咐他人来取→填写留言单，请客人签字确认→房卡、留言单 放在房卡袋中存放于抽屉内→领取时验明身份→留言单保留在客帐内直至客人退房。 ⑹客人退房时，前台员工应提醒客人交还房卡→必须验卡无误后，方可通知客 房服务员查房并办理退房手续。 ⑺退房时，客人将房卡留在房间：客房服务员查完房交到房务中心→礼宾员/ 服务员取回送至总台。 ⑻未经登记客人许可，不得为任何来访者开启客人房间或发卡给来访者； ⑼任何服务员如发现房卡遗留于公共场所，应立即交当值经理，送回前台接待 处处理； ⑽客房服务员不得对客人以错放房卡在房间内为由，随便开房门让客人进入，应即时打电话到前台接待处核实客人身份，如有任何疑问，应请客人到前台接待处办理补卡手续。 ⑾前台服务员每班交接时，必须核对客人房卡数量。发现任何缺失必须上报并在交接本上作记录。 ⑿所有房卡上不能贴房号。（房卡套未到之前，总台制作客人卡可使用房号贴）
酒 店 房 卡 管 理 规 定
酒店房卡管理规定 一、房卡类别： 1、客房房卡分总控卡、领班卡、楼层卡、客人卡。 2、总控卡由相关管理人员持有。 3、领班卡由各楼层领班持有。 4、楼层卡各楼层员工持有。 5、客人卡由前台员工保管、制作。 注：若领班卡、楼层卡丢失或损坏，应立即上报部门，采取相应的措施（消磁和补办），网络班要有补办记录，以免酒店遭受损失 二、房卡管理 1、总控卡由总经理、副总经理、前厅部经理、客房部经理、大堂经理持有。 2、领班卡、楼层卡由客房服务中心保管，实行每天签字借用制度。 ⑴领班卡用于查房使用，此卡可以开启所管辖的楼层所有客房房门。 ⑵楼层卡用于服务员打扫卫生使用，按照服务员的工作范围制作。 ⑶调换楼层时要有交接手续。 3、客人卡的管理制度： ⑴将客房卡交给客人前，前台员工必须确认客人身份； ⑵前台原则上单人房每间只发放一张房卡，双人房根据客人要求可发放两张 房卡，并在电脑中注明数量； ⑶客人房卡遗失： 验明客人身份和登记相符→说明规定，向客人收取或从押金中扣除赔偿费（30元）→重新制作l张新的房卡给客人→确保前一张房卡作废。 ⑷客人钥匙损坏：
A. 验卡→显示房号和客人所报相同，且在期限内→重新制作l张房卡给客人，并与客人说明赔偿费用。 B. 如果卡号不能显示或不能验卡→验明客人身份和登记相符→重新制作1张 房卡给客人，并向客人说明赔偿费用。 ⑸客人寄存钥匙： A. 听清客人所报房号，请客人稍等→验卡→显示房号和客人所报一致，取房卡 袋填写房号，将房卡插入房卡袋内，放在抽屉内→客人来取时，验明身份后，交还房卡。 B. 如验卡时，房号不能显示，应先验明身份，再进行寄存。 C. 如客人寄存时嘱咐他人来取→填写留言单，请客人签字确认→房卡、留言单 放在房卡袋中存放于抽屉内→领取时验明身份→留言单保留在客帐内直至客人退房。 ⑹客人退房时，前台员工应提醒客人交还房卡→必须验卡无误后，方可通知客 房服务员查房并办理退房手续。 ⑺退房时，客人将房卡留在房间：客房服务员查完房交到房务中心→礼宾员取 回送至总台。 ⑻未经登记客人许可，不得为任何来访者开启客人房间或发卡给来访者； ⑼任何服务员如发现房卡遗留于公共场所，应立即交当值主管，送回前台接待 处处理； ⑽客房服务员不得对客人以错放房卡在房间内为由，随便开房门让客人进入，应即时打电话到前台接待处核实客人身份，如有任何疑问，应请客人到前台接待处办理补卡手续。 ⑾前台服务员每班交接时，必须核对客人房卡数量。发现任何缺失必须上报并在交接本上作记录。 ⑿所有房卡上不能贴房号。
酒店房卡管理制度20111231
----------------------------精品word文档值得下载值得拥有---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- 峨眉天颐温泉度假大饭店 房卡管理制度 一、房卡类别 1、客房房卡分总控卡、领班卡、楼层卡、客人卡。 2、总控卡店级领导、客房相关管理人员持有（董事长、总经理、副总经理、客务总监、客房经理） 3、领班卡由各楼层领办持有 4、楼层卡各楼层员工持有 5、客人卡由前台员工制作 注：若领班卡、楼层卡丢失或损坏，应立即上报部门，采取相应的措施（消磁和补办），前台要有补办记录，以免酒店遭受损失 二、客人卡的管理制度： 1、将客房匙交给客人前，前台员工必须确认客人身份； 2、前台原则上单人房每间只发放一条房匙，双人房根据客人要求可发放两条房匙，并在电脑中注明； 3、客人房卡遗失： 验明客人身份和登记相符→说明规定，向客人收取或从押金中扣除赔偿费（30元）→重新制作l把新的钥匙给客人→通知房务中心→使用管理卡到该房间插一次卡（做消磁处理），确保插卡前使用的钥匙作废。 4、客人钥匙损坏： A.验卡→显示房号和客人所报相同，且在期限内→重新制作l把钥匙给客人，并向客人致歉。 B.如果卡号不能显示或不能验卡→验明客人身份和登记相符→重新制作1把钥匙给客人，并向客人致歉。 5、客人寄存钥匙： A.听清客人所报房号，请客人稍等→验卡→显示房号和客人所报一致，取房卡填写房号，钥匙插入新房卡，放在寄存抽屉内→客人来取时，验明身份后，交还钥匙，将写房号的房卡撕毁。 ----------------------------精品word文档值得下载值得拥有----------------------------------------------
酒店前台房卡管理制度
酒店前台房卡管理制度 酒店前台房卡处理制度一、房卡类别：1、客房房卡分总控卡、工头卡、楼层卡、客人卡。2、总控卡店级领导、客房相关处理人员持有（董事长、总司理、副总司理、客务总监、客房司理）3、工头卡由各楼层领办持有4、楼层卡各楼层职工持有5、客人卡由前台职工制造注：若工头卡、楼层卡丢掉或损坏，应立即上报部分，采纳相应的办法（消磁和补办），前台要有补办记载，避免酒店遭受丢失二、客人卡的处理制度：1、将客房匙交给客人前，前台职工有必要承认客人身份；2、前台原则上单人房每间只发放一条房匙，双人房依据客人要求可发放两条房匙，并在电脑中注明；3、客人房卡丢失：验明客人身份和挂号相符→阐明规则，向客人收取或从押金中扣除赔偿费（30元）→从头制造l把新的钥匙给客人→告诉房务中心→运用处理卡到该房间插一次卡（做消磁处理），保证插卡前运用的钥匙报废。4、客人钥匙损坏：A.验卡→显现房号和客人所报相同，且在期限内→从头制造l 把钥匙给客人，并向客人致歉。B.假如卡号不能显现或不能验卡→验明客人身份和挂号相符→从头制造1把钥匙给客人，并向客人致歉。5、客人存放钥匙： A.听清客人所报房号，请客人稍等→验卡→显现房号和客人所报共同，取房卡填写房号，钥匙刺进新房卡，放在存放抽屉内→客人来取时，验
明身份后，交还钥匙，将写房号的房卡撕毁。B.如验卡时，房号不能显现，应先验明身份，从头制造钥匙，再进行存放。C.如客人存放时吩咐别人来取→填写留言单，请客人签字承认→钥匙、留言单放在房卡中存放于收银抽屉内→收取时验明身份→留言单保留在客帐内直至客人退房。6、客人退房时，前台职工应提示客人交还房匙→如客人出示的钥匙没有房卡或押金单证明其房号，有必要验卡验证无误后，方可告诉客房服务员查房并处理退房手续。7、退房时，客人将钥匙留在房间：客房服务员查完房交到前台。凡有折痕、开裂、显着污迹、坏的钥匙，交前台主管保管。8、未经挂号客人答应，不得为任何来访者敞开客人房间或发卡给来访者；9、任何服务员如发现房卡留传于公共场所，应立即交当值主管，送回前台接待处处理；10、客房服务员不得对客人以错放锁匙在房间内为由，随意开房门让客人进入，应即时打电话到前台接待处核实客人身份，如有任何疑问，应请客人到前台接待处处理补匙手续。11、前台服务员每班交代时，有必要核对客人钥匙数量。发现任何缺失有必要上报并在交代本上作记载。
旅馆治安管理制度
美湖假日酒店治安管理制度 (一) 安全责任制度。 旅馆业的法定代表人或者主要负责人为治安责任人，负责组织本单位员工切实贯彻执行相关法律法规和旅馆业治安管理的各项规章制度；加强对内部保卫组织的领导，教育员工提高警惕，遵纪守法，落实各项安全防范措施。 (二) 验证登记制度。 对入住旅客，要严格检验其有效证件，做到人证相符，登记内容齐全、准确、不漏登、错登，旅馆入住、退宿登记率达到100%。验证主要是查验旅馆客居民身份、军人证、司法机关的释放证明文书、公安机关的身份证明、有身份证号码的其他证件（驾驶证等），以及行政事业单位的工作证件等；查验登记主要包括查验身份证件真伪，登记旅馆姓名、证件号码、户籍住址以及入住时间等项目。 (三) 使用旅馆业治安管理信息系统制度。 1. 及时录入、修改、传送旅馆地址、名称、经营范围等基本情况； 2. 及时录入、修改、传送旅馆法人、负责人、安保部和客房部、前厅部等部门负责人、客房、总台、安保部门的从业人员花名册； 3. 及时录入、传送行李寄存、现金及贵重物品寄存、拾物登记等情况；
4. 及时录入、传送可疑情况报查信息、骚扰登记情况； 5. 及时录入、传送发生的各种治安案件、刑事案件和治安灾害事故的情况，以及系统设置的其他信息； 6. 及时浏览接收各种通知、通缉、通报、协查，并录入、传送接收回执。 7. 因故不能及时录入旅客住宿信息的，要在1小时内补录、传送。交接班时要检查计算机登记的信息，对未传送的录入信息按规定传送。其他相关信息或信息变更要及时录入、即时传送。 8. 建立系统管理使用日志，将每天入退宿人员信息、录入数量和传输情况如实登记。如遇计算机无法录入和传输帮障时，应在30分种内和系统维修单位联系，同时告知当地派出所。 (四) 访客登记制度。 对前来访客的非住宿人员，门卫或前台服务人员应审查登记其身份证件项目、记录会客来去时间，由旅馆工作人员安排会见，提示来访客者遵守访客时间，一般安排在会客室或指定的地点，不宜进入客房会客。 (五) 值班巡查制度。 旅馆应根据规模大小设立专兼职内保人员，负责门卫、内部安全保卫和停车场所等重要部位安全管理。旅馆安保人员要加强对消防安全、治安安全检查，建立安全检查登记簿。按规定应安装监控系统的
星级酒店房卡管理制度
一、房卡类别： 1、客房房卡分总控卡、领班卡、楼层卡、客人卡。 2、总控卡店级领导、客房相关管理人员持有(董事长、总经理、副总经理、客务总监、客房经理) 3、领班卡由各楼层领办持有 4、楼层卡各楼层员工持有 5、客人卡由前台员工制作 注：若领班卡、楼层卡丢失或损坏，应立即上报部门，采取相应的措施(消磁和补办)，前台要有补办记录，以免酒店遭受损失 二、客人卡的管理制度： 1、将客房匙交给客人前，前台员工必须确认客人身份; 2、前台原则上单人房每间只发放一条房匙，双人房根据客人要求可发放两条房匙，并在电脑中注明; 3、客人房卡遗失： 验明客人身份和登记相符→说明规定，向客人收取或从押金中扣除赔偿费(30元)→重新制作l把新的钥匙给客人→通知房务
中心→使用管理卡到该房间插一次卡(做消磁处理)，确保插卡前使用的钥匙作废。 4、客人钥匙损坏： A.验卡→显示房号和客人所报相同，且在期限内→重新制作l把钥匙给客人，并向客人致歉。 B.如果卡号不能显示或不能验卡→验明客人身份和登记相符→重新制作1把钥匙给客人，并向客人致歉。 5、客人寄存钥匙： A.听清客人所报房号，请客人稍等→验卡→显示房号和客人所报一致，取房卡填写房号，钥匙插入新房卡，放在寄存抽屉内→客人来取时，验明身份后，交还钥匙，将写房号的房卡撕毁。 B.如验卡时，房号不能显示，应先验明身份，重新制作钥匙，再进行寄存。 C.如客人寄存时嘱咐他人来鳃填写留言单，请客人签字确认→钥匙、留言单放在房卡中存放于收银抽屉内→领取时验明身份→留言单保留在客帐内直至客人退房。
6、客人退房时，前台员工应提醒客人交还房匙→如客人出示的钥匙没有房卡或押金单证明其房号，必须验卡验证无误后，方可通知客房服务员查房并办理退房手续。 7、退房时，客人将钥匙留在房间：客房服务员查完房交到前台。凡有折痕、断裂、明显污迹、坏的钥匙，交前台主管保管。 8、未经登记客人许可，不得为任何来访者开启客人房间或发卡给来访者; 9、任何服务员如发现房卡遗留于公共场所，应立即交当值主管，送回前台接待处处理; 10、客房服务员不得对客人以错放锁匙在房间内为由，随便开房门让客人进入，应即时打电话到前台接待处核实客人身份，如有任何疑问，应请客人到前台接待处办理补匙手续。 11、前台服务员每班交接时，必须核对客人钥匙数量。发现任何缺失必须上报并在交接本上作记录。 10、所有IC卡上不能贴房号。