Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T04:20:10.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bioassay of various formulations of insecticides on the egg and larval stages of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei Ferrari (Scolytidae: Coleoptera)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

Ajai Mansingh
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of the West Indies, Kingston 7, Jamaica
Llewellyn F. Rhodes
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of the West Indies, Kingston 7, Jamaica
Get access

Abstract

Twenty-three insecticide formulations were bioassayed for toxicity against the eggs and larvae of H. hampei in maturing and ripe berries of C. arabica L. Var. typica. The infested berries were dipped in different concentrations of individual formulations, dissected 24 hr later for recording larval mortality and transferring the eggs to wet filter papers where larval hatching was recorded for the next 4 days. The order of toxicity and LC50 (% a.i. × 103) values for the eggs in maturing and ripe (figures in parenthesis) berries were: thiodan EC 35, 5.1 (6.2) > perfekthion, 5.9 (8.1) > decis, 7.2 (9.4) > carbicron, 7.3 (9.8) > actellic, 10.6(12.9) > thiodan EC 3, 14.7 (17.4); > folimat > aldicarb > dursban > tiovel > supona > dimilin > methomyl > kelthane > phosdrin > sevin > methoxychlor > dieldrin > azordrin > fenitrothion > bimarit > chlorpyrifos > gardona, 39.7−1043.7 (44.3−2642.2). The order of toxicity remained almost the same for the larvae, the LC50 values being 2.1−12.7 (2.9−21.8) for the top six and 14.8−1920.4 (47.1−2738.6) for the remaining 17 formulations. Generally, the formulations were 1.1−2.7-fold more toxic to larvae than to eggs infesting the maturing berries but 0.47−3.57 more toxic to eggs than larvae in the ripe berries.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1983

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

REFERENCES

Almeida, P. R. and Cavalcante, R. D. (1964) Ensaio de campo com novas insecticides organicos no combate a broca de cafe—Hypothenemus hampei (Ferr. 1867). Arg. Inst. Biol. Sao Paulo 31, 8590.Google Scholar
Almeida, P. R., Pigatti, A. and Arruda, H. V. (1980) Alguns no va productos aplicados em ensaio de campo no controle a broca—H ypothenemus hampei (Ferr. 1867)—do cafe. Resume, I.B.C. Congress, Brazil, 23, 6769.Google Scholar
Bardner, R. (1978) Pest control in coffee. Pestic. Sci. 9, 458464.Google Scholar
Bergamin, J. (1943) Contribucao para o conhecimento da biologia da broca de cafe. Arg. Inst. Biol. Sao Paulo, 14, 3172.Google Scholar
Busvine, J. R. (1971) Techniques for Testing Insecticides. Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London.Google Scholar
Le Pelley, R. H. (1968) Pests of Coffee, pp. 114138. Longman, London.Google Scholar
McPherson, G. I. (1978) Report on the presence of coffee berry borer in Jamaica. Symposium on Coffee Cultivation, Cursos y Reuniones, I.F.C.A. (Brazil), 184, 1424.Google Scholar
Rhodes, L. F. and Mansingh, A. (1982) Susceptibility of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei Ferrari to various insecticidal formulations. Insect Sei. Application 2, 227231.Google Scholar
Thomson, W. T. (1980) Agricultural Chemicals. Book I. Insecticides. Thomson Publications. Fresno. California, U.S.A.Google Scholar