Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T11:28:17.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESIDUAL TOXICITY OF PESTICIDES USED FOR LEPIDOPTERAN INSECT CONTROL ON CITRUS TO APHYTIS MELINUS DEBACH (HYMENOPTERA: APHELINIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

T.S. Bellows Jr. ,
J.G. Morse  and
L.K. Gaston
T.S. Bellows Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, California, USA 92521
J.G. Morse
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, California, USA 92521
L.K. Gaston
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, California, USA 92521
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fifteen compounds used for suppression of lepidopteran pests of citrus were applied in a commercial manner to lemon trees. Amounts of dislodgable residues, together with mortality of Aphytis melinus DeBach confined on treated foliage, were monitored for 36 days following treatment. Most materials caused high mortalities on the 1st day following treatment. Several materials had little effect on A. melinus after 7 days post-treatment. These included a formulation of Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner endotoxin, a formulation of B. thuringiensis exotoxin, cryolite, methomyl, mevinphos, naled, parathion, and trichlorfon. Carbosulfan, chlorpyrifos, esfenvalerate, fluvalinate, methomyl, and two formulations of carbaryl caused mortality for up to 30 days post-application. Mortality in the thiodicarb treatment was above 60% for the 36 days of the study. Mortality was correlated with amounts of dislodgable residue for each material tested.

Résumé

Quinze composés destinés à l’élimination des Lépidoptères nuisibles aux agrumes ont été utilisés à une échelle commerciale dans des vergers de citronniers. Les quantités de résidus récupérables et la mortalité d’Aphytis melinus DeBach sur le feuillage des arbres traités ont été estimées pendant 36 jours après le traitement. La plupart des composés ont entraîné une forte mortalité au cours de la première journée qui a suivi le traitement. Plusieurs avaient peu d’effet sur A. melinus après 7 jours, notamment une préparation d’endotoxine de Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner, une préparation d’exotoxine de B. thuringiensis, et d’autres produits, cryolite, méthomyl, mévinphos, naled, parathion et trichlorfon. Les produits suivants causaient encore de la mortalité 30 jours après l’application : carbosulfan, chlorpyrifos, esfenvalérate, fluvalinate, méthomyl et deux formes de carbaryl. Après l’application de thiodicarb, la mortalité était encore supérieure à 60% au bout des 36 jours de l’étude. La mortalité était toujours reliée à la quantité de résidus récupérables.

[Traduit par la rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 125 , Issue 6 , December 1993 , pp. 995 - 1001
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1993

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

Abbott, W.S. 1925. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. Journal of Economic Entomology 18: 265–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, J.B., and Morse, J.G. (Eds.). 1988. Citrus Treatment Guide. University of California Division of Agricultural and Natural Resources Publication 2903. Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
Bellows, T.S. Jr., and Morse, J.G.. 1988. Residual toxicity following dilute or low volume application of insecticides used for control of California red scale (Homoptera: Diaspididae) to four beneficial species in a citrus agroecosystem. Journal of Economic Entomology 81: 892–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellows, T.S. Jr., Morse, J.G., and Gaston, L.K.. 1992. Residual toxicity of pesticides used for control of lepidopteran insects in citrus to Euseius stipulatus Athias-Henriot (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Journal of Applied Entomology 113: 493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellows, T.S. Jr., Morse, J.G., Gaston, L.K., and Bailey, J.B.. 1988. The fate of two systemic insecticides and their impact on two phytophagous and a beneficial arthropod in a citrus agroecosystem. Journal of Economic Entomology 81: 899–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellows, T.S. Jr., Morse, J.G., Hadjidemetriou, D.G., and Iwata, Y.. 1985. Residual toxicity of four insecticides used for control of citrus thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on three beneficial species in a citrus agroecosystem. Journal of Economic Entomology 78: 681–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunther, F.A., Westlake, W.E., Barkley, J.H., Winterlin, W., and Langbehn, L.. 1973. Establishing dislodgable pesticide residues on leaf surfaces. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 9: 243–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haverty, M.I. 1982. Sensitivity of selected nontarget insects to the carrier of Dipel 4L in the laboratory. Environmental Entomology 11: 337–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwata, Y., Knaak, J.B., Spear, R.C., and Foster, R.J.. 1977. Worker reentry into pesticide-treated crops. I. Procedure for the determination of dislodgable pesticide residues on foliage. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 18: 649–655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morse, J.B., and Bellows, T.S. Jr., 1986. Toxicity of major citrus pesticides to Aphytis melinus (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) and Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 79: 311–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, J.G., Bellows, T.S. Jr., Gaston, L.K., and Iwata, Y.. 1987. Residual toxicity of acaricides to three beneficial species on California citrus. Journal of Economic Entomology 80: 953–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, J.G., Bellows, T.S. Jr., and Iwata, Y.. 1986. Technique for evaluating residual toxicity of pesticides to motile insects. Journal of Economic Entomology 79: 281–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munger, F. 1942. A method for rearing citrus thrips in the laboratory. Journal of Economic Entomology 35: 373–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar