Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T02:39:34.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Insecticide Studies on East African Agricultural Pests. III.—Seed Dressings for the Control of the Bean Fly, Melanagromyza phaseoli (coq.), in Tanganyika

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

P. T. Walker
Affiliation:
Colonial Pesticides Research Unit, Porton Down, Salisbury, England.

Extract

The bean fly, Melanagromyza. phaseoli (Coq.), the larvae of which tunnel in the stems of Phaseolus vulgaris, is a pest of this crop in Tanganyika. Field trials there in 1956 on haricot-type beans showed that dressing the seed with chlorinated-hydrocarbon insecticides could prevent attack for at least 30 days after germination; organophosphorus insecticides were less effective. In four further field trials (A-D), in 1957, the insecticides and types of formulation used were aldrin (wettable powder and emusifiable concentrate (EC)), endrin (EC), γ BHC (dry dressing and EC), dieldrin (dry dressing and EC) and a proprietary organophosphorus systemic (dry dressing). Wet dressings were applied by treating the seeds with the liquid and drying immediately, and in one treatment aldrin as a wettable powder was applied dry and the seeds then damped and dried at once.

Damage was assessed on an arbitrary scale on trials A and B, and yields measured on trials A, C and D. Results varied between insecticides and under different growing conditions, but wet dressing with endrin at 213 mg. per 100 g. seed, of which about 50 per cent, was retained on the seeds, resulted in the lowest damage, amounting to 7·7 compared with 52·6 for the control (no dressing), and the highest yield, amounting to 13·5 units compared with 8·6 for the control. All treatments, except that with the organophosphorus dust, reduced the damage significantly below that in the control. Wet dressings were usually more effective than dry dressings with the same insecticide, as regards both yield and reduction in damage. This may be associated with the better retention of wet dressings, which was shown by the results of chemical analysis of the residues on the seeds left in the drill hopper after sowing.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Braithwaite, B. M. (1957). An experiment for the control of bean fly.—Agric. Gas. N.S.W. 68 pp. 9597.Google Scholar
Ditman, L. P., Cox, C. E. & Kantzes, J. G. (1956). Treatment of pea, snap bean, and lima bean seed with insecticides and fungicides.—J. econ. Ent. 48 pp. 688693.Google Scholar
Hely, P. C. (1948). Bean fly control.—Agric. Gaz. N.S.W. 59 pp. 419420.Google Scholar
Van der Laan, P. A. (1949). Over de bestrijding van het katjang-vliegje op kedelee met insecticiden.—Meded. alg. Proefst. Landb. no. 98, 28 pp. (Rev. appl. Ent. (A) 41 p. 59.)Google Scholar
Moutia, A. (1945). Division of Entomology.—Rep. Dep. Agric. Mauritius 1944 pp. 1419.Google Scholar
Moutia, A. (1946). Entomological Division.—Rep. Dep. Agric. Mauritius 1945 pp. 1721.Google Scholar
Van Someren, G. C. (1956). Notes on the beanfly (Agromyza phaseoli) and a trial with insecticidal seed dressing for control.—4 pp. Nairobi, Fison's Pest Control (East Africa) Ltd., 1956.Google Scholar
Starks, K. J. & Lilly, J. H. (1955). Insecticide seed treatment of soybeans in relation to phytotoxicity and seed-corn maggot control.—J. econ. Ent. 48 pp. 538543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar