Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-11T16:17:44.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the Chemical Control of Wireworms (Agriotes spp.). I.—The Direct and Residual Effects of BHC, DDT, D-D, and Ethylene Dibromide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

C. Potter ,
M. J. R. Healy  and
F. Raw
C. Potter
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.
M. J. R. Healy
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.
F. Raw
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Following crop failures due to wireworm (Agriotes spp.) attack on Little Hoos Field, Bothamsted, two experiments were made on the use of four chemicals to prevent wireworm attack on wheat. The chemicals used were BHC, technical DDT, ethylene dibromide and D-D.

Benzene hexachloride in the form of a dust containing 3·5 per cent. crude BHC was broadcast at the rate of 7·9 lb./acre crude BHC ≡ 15·2–16·0 oz. γ isomer per acre and was combine-drilled with the seed at rates ranging from 0·98–3·92 lb./acre crude BHC ≡ 1·9–8·0 oz. γ isomer per acre. It was also applied as a seed dressing at the rate of 2 oz./bushel of a dressing containing 20 per cent. technical γ isomer of BHC. DDT was drilled with the seed at 7·2 lb./acre technical DDT and ethylene dibromide and D-D were injected into the soil as soil fumigants by means of a special machine at 45·5 lb./acre and 210 lb./acre, respectively.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , January 1956 , pp. 913 - 923
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

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

Anon. (1949). DDT for wireworm control.—Agric. Chem., 4, no. 4, pp. 37–39.Google Scholar
Aenason, A. P. & Fox, W. B. (1948). Wireworm control in the Prairie Provinces by means of BHC seed dressings.—Process. Publ. Div. Ent. Dep. Agric. Can., no. 111, 6 pp.Google Scholar
Arnason, A. P., FOX, W. B. & Glen, R. (1948). A preliminary test of DDT and benzene hexachloride for the control of wireworms in a Saskatchewan potato field.—Canad. Ent., 79, pp. 174–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanka, A. (1950). Utvrdivanje majefikasnijih mjera za suzbiganje klisnjaka (Elateridae). (Determination of the most efficacious measures for the control of Elaterids).—Zaranie Slas, 2, pp. 35–48.Google Scholar
Cook, W. C. (1949). Comparative studies of three soil fumigants for wireworm control.—Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric., no. 980, 22 pp.Google Scholar
Doggee, J. E. & Lilly, J. H. (1949). Seed treatment as a means of reducing wireworm damage to corn.— J. econ. Ent., 42, pp. 663–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernould, L. (1948). La lutte contre les taupins.—Publ. Inst. beige Amdlior. Better., 16, pp. 299–312.Google Scholar
Fabee, W. (1951). Versuche zur Drahtwurmbekampfung durch Saatgutbeizung mit Hexamitteln.—PflSchBer., 6, pp. 17–26.Google Scholar
Fleming, W. E. (1950). Persistence of effect of DDT on Japanese Beetle larvae in New Jersey soils.—J. econ. Ent., 43, pp. 87–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcheb, F. W. (1952). Insecticides as seed treatments for the control of soil pests.—Down to Earth, 8, pp. 16–19.Google Scholar
Galakhov, P. N. (1950). The seasonal transference of larvae of the Steppe Elater (Agriotes gurgistanus Fald.) in the soil and the efficiency of various measures for its control. [In Russian.]—Proc. Lenin. Acad. agric. Sci., 15, pp. 31–35.Google Scholar
Golightly, W. H. (1946). Modern insecticides and their use against wire-worms.—Nature, Lond., 158, p. 448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J. (1951). Soil injectors.—Res. Bull. W. Scot. Coll. Agric., no. 11, 32 pp.Google Scholar
Hensill, G. S. (1949). Protection of growing plants from soil insects by use of insecticides on seeds.—Agric. Chem., 4, no. 9, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar
Holmes, E. (1951). Eecent British developments in taint-free use of BHC.—Agric. Chem., 6, no. 12, pp. 31–33, 113, 115.Google Scholar
Ingram, J. W., Bynum, E. K., Charpentier, L. J. & Haley, W. E. (1950). Chemical control of soil insects and organisms attacking sugarcane.—Sug. J., 12, no. 10, pp. 13–14, 20.Google Scholar
Jameson, H. E. & Peacock, F. C. (1953). Taint in potatoes grown on land treated with technical γ-benzene hexachloride or pure γ-benzene hexachloride.—J. Sci. Fd Agric., 4, pp. 102–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jameson, H. E. & Tanner, C. C. (1951). Taint in potatoes grown on land treated with crude benzene hexachloride against wireworms.—J. Sci. Fd Agric., 2, pp. 171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jameson, H. E., Thomas, F. J. D. & Tanner, C. C. (1951). The control of wire-worm by gamma benzene hexachloride: the development of a seed dressing for cereals.—Ann. appl. Biol., 38, pp. 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jameson, H. E., Thomas, F. J. D. & Woodward, E. C. (1947). The practical control of wireworm by γ-benzene hexachloride (Gammexane): comparisons with dichlorodiphenyltrichlorethane (D.D.T.).—Ann. appl. Biol., 34, pp. 346–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, K. M., Arnason, A. P. & Manson, G. F. (1948). Chemical control of wireworms in Canada.—Process. Publ. Div. Ent. Dep. Agric Can., no. 87, 8 pp.Google Scholar
Kulash, W. M. (1953). Insecticidally treated seed for wireworm control.—J. econ. Ent., 46, pp. 433–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulash, W. M. & Monroe, E. J. (1954). Laboratory tests for control of wire-worms.—J. econ. Ent., 47, pp. 341–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, M. C., Stone, M. W., Lanchester, H. P., Jones, E. W. & Gibson, K. E. (1948). Studies with DDT as a control for wireworms in irrigated lands—progress report.—U.S. Dep. Agric. Bur. Ent., E-765, 9 pp. multigraph.Google Scholar
Lange, W. H. JR., (1945). Ethylene dibromide and dichloropropane–dichloropropene mixture for wireworm control.—J. econ. Ent., 38, pp. 643–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, W. H. (1947). New developments in soil insecticides.—Agric. Chem., 2, no. 9, pp. 20–23, 68–69, 71.Google Scholar
Lange, W. H. JR., Carlson, E. C. & Leach, L. D. (1949). Seed treatments for wireworm control with particular reference to the use of lindane.—J. econ. Ent., 42, pp. 942–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClellan, W. D., Christie, J. R. & Horn, N. L. (1949). Efficacy of soil fumigants as affected by soil temperature and moisture.—Phytopathology, 39, pp. 272–283.Google Scholar
Newhall, A. G. (1946). Volatile soil fumigants for plant disease control.—Soil Sci., 61, pp. 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pepper, B. B., Reed, J. P. & Campbell, J. C. (1949). Investigations on wire-worm control with organic insecticides in New Jersey.—Amer. Potato J., 26, pp. 315–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eoberts, E. (1947). Soil treatment to control Blapstinus wireworms.—J. econ. Ent., 40, pp. 571–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakurai, K. (1952). On the wireworms injurious to potatoes and their control. [In Japanese with English summary.]—Oyō-kontyū, 3, pp. 34–41.Google Scholar
Stone, M. W. (1949). Control of wireworms in California with the soil fumigants chlorinated propane-propylene and ethylene dibromide.—U.S. Dep. Agric. Bur. Ent., E-786, 21 pp.Google Scholar
Stone, M. W. & Foley, F. B. (1954). Field experiments with insecticides for the control of wireworms in irrigated lands.—J. econ. Ent., 46, pp. 1075–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, I. (1949). Recent research on wireworms.—Agriculture, 56, pp. 221–228.Google Scholar